Biometric privacy laws by state
AI Laws USA tracks 121 U.S. AI rules on biometric data across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal biometric data rules (23)
-
In effect
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective June 23, 2025 · 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. Part 312
COPPA requires online services aimed at children under 13 to get verifiable parental consent before collecting kids' personal data. The 2025 rule update — fully in effect since April 22, 2026 — adds biometric identifiers (like face templates and voiceprints, which matter for AI tools), requires separate parental consent before sharing children's data for targeted advertising, and tightens data retention limits.
-
In effect
FTC v. Rite Aid
FTC · Effective February 26, 2024 · FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05023 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2023)
The FTC banned Rite Aid from using facial-recognition technology in its stores for five years after finding the pharmacy chain's FRT system falsely tagged customers — disproportionately women and people of color — as shoplifters, leading to wrongful detentions and humiliations.
-
In effect
Patel v. Facebook (BIPA)
N.D. Cal. · Effective February 26, 2021 · 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)
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.
-
In effect
FTC v. IntelliVision
FTC · Effective January 13, 2025 · In re IntelliVision Techs. Corp., FTC No. C-4813 (Dec. 19, 2024)
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.
-
In effect
FTC v. Amazon (Alexa)
FTC · Effective July 19, 2023 · United States v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00811 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2023)
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.
-
In effect
FTC v. Amazon (Ring)
FTC · Effective June 16, 2023 · Federal Trade Commission v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C. 2023)
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.
-
In effect
In re Google Photos BIPA
Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. · Effective September 28, 2022 · Rivera v. Google LLC, No. 2019-CH-00990 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.)
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.
-
In effect
In re TikTok ($92M)
N.D. Ill. · Effective July 28, 2022 · In re TikTok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL No. 2948 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Lipps v. City of Fargo — facial recognition wrongful arrest (2026)
D.N.D. · Lipps v. City of Fargo, complaint filed Sept. 15, 2026 (D.N.D.)
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.
-
In effect
Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En
United States · Effective December 26, 2025 · Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States
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.
-
In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat
United States · Effective January 1, 2023 · TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)
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.
-
In effect
Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I
United States · Effective June 1, 2022 · Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports
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.
-
In effect
CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
United States · Effective January 1, 2020 · CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Robinson v. Meta voiceprint CDAFA suit dismissed (2026)
United States · Robinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2026) (order of dismissal; Breyer, J.)
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Sigwalt v. Amazon/Ring — Familiar Faces facial recognition suit
United States · Sigwalt v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01887 (W.D. Wash. filed June 1, 2026)
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.
-
Proposed / pending
Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)
United States · Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)
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.
-
Proposed / pending
FTC Commercial Surveillance ANPR
United States · 87 Fed. Reg. 51273
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.
-
Proposed / pending
Federal Facial Recognition & Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (2026)
United States · H.R. 10563, 119th Cong. (2026) — Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
In re Clearview AI Class Settlement
N.D. Ill. · Effective June 21, 2024 · In re Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL 2967, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill.)
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Krupke v. Walmart BIPA voiceprint class action (2026)
United States · Krupke v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:26-cv-09305 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 6, 2026) (Pacold, J.)
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Alvarez v. Meta NameTag smart glasses biometrics suit (2026)
United States · Alvarez v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 7, 2026) — BIPA, California publicity and constitutional privacy claims
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.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Gatlin v. St. Louis / AWS Rekognition false arrest suit (2026)
United States · Gatlin v. City of St. Louis et al. — wrongful arrest action; amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services (August 2026)
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.
-
Expired
Federal facial recognition moratorium (died)
United States · S. 4084 (2020) / S. 2052 (2021) / S. 681 (2023) — never marked up
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.
State biometric data rules (28)
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
New York SAFE for Kids Act final rules (2026)
New York · Effective January 25, 2027 · N.Y. Off. of the Att'y Gen., SAFE for Kids Act Final Rules (July 28, 2026) (Act eff. Jan. 25, 2027)
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.
-
In effect
Texas CUBI (2009)
TX · Effective September 1, 2009 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §503.001 (2009)
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.
-
In effect
IL BIPA (2008, first-in-nation biometric law)
IL · Effective October 3, 2008 · 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (P.A. 95-994, 2008; amended P.A. 103-0769, 2024)
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.
-
In effect
BIPA
Illinois · Effective October 3, 2008 · 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
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.
-
In effect
Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)
Virginia · Effective July 1, 2026 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (2026), effective July 1, 2026
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.
-
In effect
WA SB 6280 (2020, first-in-nation state FR-government law)
WA · Effective July 1, 2021 · RCW Ch. 43.386 (SB 6280, 2020)
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.
-
In effect
IL AI Video Interview Act (2019, first-in-nation)
IL · Effective January 1, 2020 · 820 ILCS 42/1 et seq. (P.A. 101-0260, 2019; P.A. 102-0407, 2021)
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.
-
In effect
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
California · Effective March 30, 2026 · 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
Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance an
MN · Effective January 15, 2026 · Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance and how to protect your privacy (2026-01-15)
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.
-
In effect
Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI C
Arizona · Effective January 15, 2026 · Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot (Grok)
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.
-
In effect
TRAIGA
Texas · Effective January 1, 2026 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 552; Tex. HB 149 (89th Leg., R.S., 2025), TRAIGA
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.
-
In effect
Texas v. Google
TX · Effective May 9, 2025 · Texas v. Google — $1.375B Biometric and Location Data Settlement (2025-05-09)
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.
-
In effect
Texas v. Google ($1.375B)
TX · Effective May 9, 2025 · State of Texas v. Google LLC (Harrison Cty., Tex., May 9, 2025)
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.
-
In effect
LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · Effective February 27, 2025 · 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
Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc
Texas A&M University System · Effective December 10, 2024 · Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligence
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.
-
In effect
My Health My Data Act
Washington · Effective March 31, 2024 · RCW ch. 19.373
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.
-
In effect
USVI Act 8797 (RTCC)
US Virgin Islands · Effective December 19, 2023 · V.I. Act No. 8797 (2023); 3 V.I.C. § 263(a)
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.
-
In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition
New York State Education Department · Effective September 27, 2023 · Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition Technology in Schools
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.
-
In effect
New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on
New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) · Effective September 1, 2023 · New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on facial recognition purchase/use)
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.
-
In effect
Cothron v. White Castle
IL · Effective February 17, 2023 · Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 IL 128004
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).
-
In effect
ACLU v. Clearview AI
IL · Effective May 9, 2022 · ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020-CH-04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.)
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.
-
In effect
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of
Vermont · Effective March 10, 2020 · Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law
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.
-
In effect
Rosenbach v. Six Flags
IL · Effective January 25, 2019 · Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d 1197
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.
-
In effect
WA Biometric Identifiers Act (2017)
WA · Effective July 23, 2017 · RCW Ch. 19.375 (HB 1493, 2017)
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.
-
Expired
Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
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.
-
Expired
Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Luf
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)
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.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub
Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners · MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Subway
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.
-
Repealed / replaced
VA SB 1392 / HB 2031 (2021 FR moratorium, narrowed 2022)
VA · Effective July 1, 2021 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (former, HB 2031 / SB 1392 2021) — substantially superseded by HB 1352 / SB 741 (2022)
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.
County biometric data rules (11)
-
In effect
Montgomery County MD Police Directive FC 0627
Montgomery County, MD · Effective October 1, 2024 · MCPD Directive FC 0627 (Use of Facial Recognition Technology), posted 2024-10-01
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.
-
In effect
King County FR Ban
King County, WA · King County, Wash., Ordinance 19296 (June 1, 2021)
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.
-
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
MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband
Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) · Effective October 20, 2025 · MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband detection (LINEV Systems)
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.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use
King County, WA · Effective June 1, 2021 · Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use of facial recognition technology
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.
-
In effect
King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202
King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) · Effective June 1, 2021 · King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 2021)
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.
-
In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · Effective March 23, 2020 · 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
Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detro
Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport) · Effective July 1, 2018 · Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detroit Metro Airport
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.
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief
Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract
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.
-
Proposed / pending
Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni
Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) · Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recognition pilot contract
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).
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County personal-info disclosure ban (proposed 2026)
Cook County, IL · Cook County, IL, File 26-2426 (proposed ordinance amendment, 2026)
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.
City / local biometric data rules (59)
-
In effect
Aurora IL data center standards + biometric privacy ordinance (O26-021, 2026)
Aurora, IL · Effective March 25, 2026 · City of Aurora, IL, Ordinance O26-021 (adopted Mar. 24, 2026), adding Code chs. 50-51
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).
-
In effect
NYC Biometric Identifier Law (LL3)
New York City, NY · Effective July 9, 2021 · NYC Admin. Code §§ 22-1201–22-1205 (Local Law 3 of 2021)
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.
-
In effect
Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)
Portland, OR · Effective January 1, 2021 · Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 (private-sector); Council Action Sept. 9, 2020
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.
-
In effect
Portland Private-Sector FR Ban
Portland, OR · Effective January 1, 2021 · Portland, Or., City Code ch. 34.10 (Ordinance 190114, 2020)
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.
-
In effect
NY School FR Moratorium (Rochester effects)
Rochester, NY · Effective December 22, 2020 · Part BB of ch. 56 of Laws of 2020; N.Y. Educ. Law 2-d-1
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.
-
In effect
Newark Police FR Prohibition
Newark, NJ · Effective January 27, 2020 · NJ AG informal email moratorium (January 27, 2020); no formal directive number issued; no documented Newark PD formal adopting policy
New Jersey Attorney General directive (followed by Newark PD) bars all New Jersey law-enforcement agencies — including Newark — from using Clearview AI facial recognition.
-
In effect
Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)
Berkeley, CA · Effective November 14, 2019 · 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 August 15, 2019 · 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 July 15, 2019 · 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
Somerville Face Surveillance Ban (2019, first East Coast)
Somerville, MA · Effective June 27, 2019 · Somerville, Mass., Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance (June 27, 2019)
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.
-
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
Portland (Maine) Facial Surveillance Ban
Portland, ME · Portland, Me., facial surveillance ban (Aug. 2020), as amended by Question B (Nov. 2020)
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.
-
In effect
DPD FR Policy (2023 update)
Detroit, MI · Effective May 30, 2024 · DPD Directive 307.5 (2023, as updated)
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.
-
In effect
Indianapolis Metro PD FR Prohibition
Indianapolis, IN · Effective April 1, 2023 · IMPD Gen. Order 2944094, Biometric Technology / Facial Recognition (available at public.powerdms.com/INDYMETRO/documents/2944094)
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department general order prohibiting use of facial recognition technology by IMPD personnel without express written authorization and case predicate.
-
In effect
San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance
San Diego, CA · Effective August 23, 2022 · 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
Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology
Worcester, MA · Effective December 14, 2021 · Worcester Ord. (Dec. 2021) (2021-12-14)
Eighth MA municipality to ban government use of face surveillance; bars city officials from obtaining, retaining, requesting, or using FR systems.
-
In effect
MA Police Reform FR Restriction (Worcester)
Worcester, MA · Effective December 31, 2020 · Mass. Gen. Laws c. 6, secs. 219-220 (Ch. 253 of 2020)
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.
-
In effect
Portland City-Government FR Ban
Portland, OR · Effective September 9, 2020 · Portland, Or., city-bureau face recognition ban ordinance (Sept. 9, 2020)
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.
-
In effect
Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition
Jackson, MS · Effective August 18, 2020 · Jackson Ord. (Aug. 2020) (2020-08-18)
Bars Jackson PD and city agencies from acquiring or using biometric face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Boston Face Surveillance Ban
Boston, MA · Effective June 24, 2020 · Boston, Mass., Code of Ordinances 16-62 (2020)
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.
-
In effect
Northampton Face Surveillance Ban
Northampton, MA · Effective December 19, 2019 · Ord. 19.176 (2019-12-19)
Prohibits Northampton from collecting or using biometric face-surveillance information.
-
In effect
Orlando Ends Rekognition Pilot
Orlando, FL · Effective July 18, 2019 · City of Orlando memo to City Council, July 18, 2019
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.
-
In effect
Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Cambridge, MA · Cambridge, Mass., Mun. Code ch. 2.128, FR ban amendment (Jan. 13, 2020)
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.
-
In effect
Brookline Face Surveillance Ban
Brookline, MA · Town of Brookline, Mass., General By-Laws (Warrant Art. 25, 2019)
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.
-
In effect
Minneapolis FR Ban
Minneapolis, MN · Minneapolis, Minn., FR Ban Ordinance (Feb. 12, 2021)
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.
-
In effect
Madison Face Surveillance Ban
Madison, WI · Madison, Wis., Gen. Ordinances §§ 23.63–23.64
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.
-
In effect
Ocean City MD first municipal AI policy (2026)
Ocean City, MD · Effective August 26, 2026 · Ocean City, Md. — first municipal AI policy governing town workers, sensitive data, approved tools and wearable devices (2026)
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.
-
In effect
Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency)
Bristol, VA · Effective June 1, 2026 · 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
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).
-
In effect
Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia
Milwaukee, WI · Effective February 6, 2026 · Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facial recognition technology
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.
-
In effect
Dallas PD Clearview AI facial recognition policy
Dallas, TX · Effective October 17, 2024 · Dallas Police Department Clearview AI Facial Recognition Technology Program; City Council Public Safety Committee approval May 2024; City Manager Memo October 11, 2024
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.
- 29 more
- Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5 · Detroit, MI · In effect
- Miami PD FR Policy · Miami, FL · In effect
- Fresno PD FR Policy · Fresno, CA · In effect
- SPD FR Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
- Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera · Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · In effect
- Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
- LAPD Facial Recognition Policy · Los Angeles, CA · In effect
- New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti · Lockport City School District, NY · In effect
- Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin · New Orleans, LA · In effect
- Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial · Madison, WI · In effect
- Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
- Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci · Portland, OR · In effect
- Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P · Portland, ME · In effect
- Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston · Boston, MA · In effect
- Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur · Springfield, MA · In effect
- Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol · Cambridge, MA · In effect
- Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu · Oakland, CA · In effect
- Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance · Somerville, MA · In effect
- Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u · Somerville, MA · In effect
- First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio · City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · In effect
- Killinger v. Jager / Reno facial recognition arrest suit · Reno, NV · Blocked / in litigation
- New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules · New Orleans, LA · In effect
- Milwaukee PD Facial Recognition Halt · Milwaukee, WI · Proposed / pending
- Ban biometric recognition in public accommodations (Ban The Scan) · New York City · Proposed / pending
- Limit facial recognition in residential buildings (Ban The Scan) · New York City · Proposed / pending
- Providence CPRA Amendments · Providence, RI · Proposed / pending
- Baltimore FR Ban (Expired) · Baltimore, MD · Expired