Kids' online safety and AI laws by state

AI Laws USA tracks 210 U.S. AI rules on children's online safety across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.

Federal children's online safety rules (15)

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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
TAKE IT DOWN Act

United States · Effective May 19, 2025 · Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146)

Makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of someone without consent, including AI-generated deepfakes. Social media and similar platforms must give victims a way to request removal and must take the content (and known copies) down within 48 hours. The platform removal requirement became enforceable May 19, 2026, and the FTC has already begun enforcement.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)

S.D. Ohio · Effective April 16, 2025 · NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025)

Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act — requiring parental consent for minors' social-media use, including algorithmic feeds — was preliminarily enjoined on February 12, 2024, then permanently enjoined on April 16, 2025 when the district court granted summary judgment for NetChoice. The state appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which vacated the district court's injunction in 2026.

Full entry · Court record
Blocked / in litigation
NetChoice v. Bonta (SB 976)

N.D. Cal. · Effective December 31, 2024 · NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 5:24-cv-07885 (N.D. Cal.)

NetChoice (the tech-industry trade group) challenged California's SB 976 — which restricts addictive algorithmic feeds for minors — and won a preliminary injunction blocking key portions on First Amendment grounds in December 2024. The Ninth Circuit is reviewing. IN SEPTEMBER 2026 THE ARGUMENT WIDENED IN A WAY WORTH RECORDING. The challenge had 'largely centered on how the law violates SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES' First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit' — a platform-rights theory. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION together with the CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY and the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION argues that the law violates TEEN USERS' First Amendment rights TOO. SB 976 requires that teen social media users get their PARENTS' PERMISSION before seeing other users' recommended speech in their feeds. The brief's argument is that recommendation systems serve a DUAL purpose: they help users discover other people's speech, and they get the user's OWN speech in front of a wider audience. On that reading a parental-consent gate on recommendations is not merely a restriction on what a teenager may read — it is a restriction on how far what they say can travel. The brief argues SB 976 'frustrates young people's ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users' speech,' and that it creates 'significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users' ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion.' This entry is indexed as a protection-relevant record precisely because the interests here point in opposite directions: SB 976 is a child-safety measure, and the parties arguing it is unconstitutional include digital-rights organisations arguing on behalf of the minors it was written to protect.

Full entry · Court record
Blocked / in litigation
Character.AI Companion Chatbot Suits

M.D. Fla. + E.D. Tex. · Effective October 22, 2024 · Garcia v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.); A.F. v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.)

Five plaintiffs across two jurisdictions sued Character.AI in 2024 alleging the companion chatbot service caused minors' suicide, self-harm, sexual abuse, and severe mental injury. Garcia v. Character.AI in Florida was the first AI companion wrongful-death suit; in Texas a federal court issued a landmark May 2025 ruling that AI chatbot outputs are not protected First Amendment speech.

Full entry · Court record
Blocked / in litigation
CCIA v. Paxton (TX SCOPE)

W.D. Tex. · Effective August 30, 2024 · CCIA v. Paxton, No. 1:24-cv-00849 (W.D. Tex.)

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice partially enjoined Texas's SCOPE Act (HB 18), which restricts targeted advertising and algorithmic content curation for minors, before its September 2024 effective date.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
FTC v. NGL Labs

FTC · Effective July 14, 2024 · United States v. NGL Labs, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-05753 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2024)

The FTC and the Los Angeles DA settled with anonymous-messaging app NGL Labs for $5M in July 2024, alleging the company used fake AI-generated 'anonymous' messages to manipulate teen users into paying for premium features that wouldn't actually reveal sender identities. NGL is banned from marketing to under-18 users.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Court record
Blocked / in litigation
xAI v. Harwood (Grok NCII Counter-Suit 2026)

United States · Effective July 14, 2026 · xAI Corp. v. Terry Harwood, N.D. Tex. (Dallas Div.), filed July 14, 2026

xAI Corp. (the company behind the Grok AI chatbot, formerly operating as 'X.AI') filed a civil lawsuit on July 14, 2026 in the Northern District of Texas against Terry Harwood, a South Carolina man. The lawsuit alleges Harwood opened two Grok accounts between December 8, 2025 and February 18, 2026, uploading non-sexual photos of adults and minors and manipulating Grok into generating sexually explicit deepfake images — bypassing the system's safety guardrails. xAI seeks unspecified monetary damages and a permanent ban on Harwood from all xAI products. Harwood was separately arrested on February 26, 2026 on criminal charges of sexual exploitation of a minor. The case is notable as one of the first civil lawsuits filed by an AI company against a user for misusing the AI system to generate harmful content, rather than the more common pattern of a victim suing the AI company. xAI disclosed it suspended 52,222 accounts and filed 73,604 NCMEC reports related to Grok deepfake abuse in 2026, leading to at least 244 arrests.

Full entry · News report
In effect
ED AI in Education Report

United States · Effective May 24, 2023 · ED OET Report (May 24, 2023)

The Education Department's first major AI report set federal policy direction for AI in K-12 and higher education — calling for human-centered design, educator oversight, equity safeguards, and a moratorium on high-stakes uses of AI to evaluate students or teachers without strong evidence and oversight.

Full entry · Agency page
Proposed / pending
Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757)

United States · Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757)

The KIDS Act (H.R. 7757), sponsored by Rep. Brett Guthrie, bundles several children's online-safety bills. It passed the U.S. House 267-117 on June 29, 2026 and was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on July 13, 2026. Its SAFE BOTs Act title would require AI chatbot providers to tell minor users they are talking to an AI, provide suicide and crisis resources, prompt a break after three hours of continuous use, never claim to be a licensed professional, and keep policies against sexual exploitation and the promotion of age-restricted gambling, drugs, tobacco and alcohol.

Full entry · Agency page
Proposed / pending
H.R. 10719 Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act

United States · H.R. 10719, 119th Congress

This House bill would require AI chatbots to have a 'non-personified' default setting that clearly identifies the chatbot as AI, turned on for users the provider knows or has reason to know are minors. Providers would have to offer parental controls and could not use design tricks to push minors to turn those settings off. The FTC and state attorneys general could enforce it, with each affected minor counted as a separate violation.

Full entry · Bill text
Proposed / pending
S. 5225 K–12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act

United States · S. 5225, 119th Congress

This Senate bill would let states and school districts use existing federal K-12 education funds for teaching students to use AI safely and responsibly. It would also allow the funds to pay for training teachers, administrators, librarians and support staff on AI. It is the Senate version of House bill H.R. 8747.

Full entry · Bill text
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.

Full entry · News report

State children's online safety rules (104)

Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Kids Code Act A4015 (signed Aug 11, 2026; effective Sept 1, 2027)

NJ · Effective September 1, 2027 · N.J. A4015/S3413 (222nd Legislature, 2026) — signed Aug. 11, 2026; effective Sept. 1, 2027

New Jersey's Kids Code Act (A4015/S3413), signed by Governor Sherrill on August 11, 2026, is the most aggressive Age-Appropriate Design Code law in the United States. Effective September 1, 2027, it requires online platforms likely to be accessed by children under 18 to: default privacy settings to the highest available protective level for minor users; ban push notifications during school hours and late at night; prohibit 'compulsive engagement' design features; conduct data protection impact assessments; restrict profiling and advertising; and minimize data collection to what is necessary. It is the first state design code with a private right of action — parents can sue for $5,000 per violation on behalf of their children — making it a much stronger enforcement tool than California's CAADCA (AG-only) or the federal KOSA.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 1119 Adam's Law, companion chatbots (2026)

California · Effective July 1, 2027 · Cal. S.B. 1119 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 190 — Adam's Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 21810 et seq. (approved September 10, 2026; main duties operative July 1, 2027)

California Senate Bill 1119, which the law itself names "Adam's Law" (press coverage calls it the Adam Raine Law), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 190). Starting July 1, 2027, companies that run companion chatbots must protect users under 18. By default, a child can chat for no more than one hour at a time and two hours a day, and only a parent can change those limits. Operators must have a crisis plan that points a child to crisis services, must tell a parent as soon as practicable if the chatbot detects a credible threat of suicide or self-harm, must assess risks to children before launching a new or substantially changed chatbot, and must publish a child safety policy. Public prosecutors can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child, or $15,000 if the violation was intentional, and a harmed child or their parent can sue for actual damages.

Full entry · Bill text
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.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 867 AI chatbot toy moratorium (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. S.B. 867 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 189 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22601, 22604.5) — Toys: companion chatbots (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027; repealed January 1, 2031)

California Senate Bill 867, titled 'Toys: companion chatbots', establishes a FOUR-YEAR MORATORIUM on AI-powered chatbot toys for children under sixteen. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. This is an unusual instrument and worth understanding on its own terms. Almost every AI measure in this dataset regulates a service — an app, a platform, a website — that a child chooses to open. SB 867 regulates a PHYSICAL PRODUCT that a parent buys and a child holds: a toy with a conversational AI inside it. A child does not navigate to it, consent to terms, or understand it as software. The response is not disclosure, not age verification, not a safety plan, but a flat four-year pause on the category for under-16s. A four-year term is also notably long for a moratorium; it is closer to a prohibition with a scheduled review than to a study period. The bill was one of twelve signed the same day in California's online child safety and AI package, alongside SB 1119's companion chatbot duties and AB 1709's restrictions on addictive social media features.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1709 addictive feeds and under-16 age restriction (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1709 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 183 — Covered platforms: age restriction: e-Safety Advisory Commission; adds Bus. & Prof. Code § 22682 et seq. and Gov. Code § 11530 et seq.

California Assembly Bill 1709 bars covered platforms — social media and similar apps and websites — from giving users under 16 any 'addictive feature': a personalized, engagement-driven feed, autoplay, or any other feature the Attorney General defines by regulation. Platforms must verify ages and take reasonable measures to keep these features away from under-16s. A platform can still let under-16s have accounts if those accounts have no addictive features; otherwise it must delete under-16 accounts and their personal information. The Attorney General or a local prosecutor can sue for up to $50,000 per affected child for knowing violations ($25,000 if negligent). The law also creates a seven-member, purely advisory e-Safety Advisory Commission. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 183); as a regular statute it takes effect January 1, 2027. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed it, arguing it works as a social media ban for under-16s and violates the First Amendment — while supporting two digital-literacy bills (AB 2071 and AB 2298) signed in the same package. No court challenge had been located as of late September 2026.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 2 social media child harm liability (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 2 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — social media platform liability for harm to children (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027)

California Assembly Bill 2 makes social media platforms LEGALLY LIABLE for damages to children. Reporting on the signing package describes penalties of up to $1 MILLION PER CHILD where a large social media company is found negligent of harming children. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. This is the enforcement engine of the whole package. The other bills signed that day impose duties — strip addictive features, run risk assessments, alert parents, keep AI toys away from under-16s — and duties without a liability route are frequently unenforced in practice. AB 2 supplies that route, and a per-child measure of damages is the design choice that gives it weight: for a platform with millions of minor users, exposure scales with the affected population rather than being capped at a single institutional fine, which changes the calculation from a cost of doing business into an existential number. The mechanism also differs from the dominant American approach to platform harm, which has generally run through Section 230 disputes and product-liability theories in court rather than through a state statute creating liability directly. The specific negligence standard, the definition of 'large' platform and the relationship to federal law are not established by the located coverage and must be read from the statute.

Full entry · News report
Vetoed
Arizona HB 2311 AI chatbot safety for minors — vetoed 2026

Arizona · Ariz. H.B. 2311, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) — vetoed June 19, 2026

Arizona HB 2311 would have required operators of conversational AI services to tell users they are talking to AI at the start of each session, every three hours, and with a persistent on-screen notice. For minor users it would have banned reward systems designed to keep them engaged, AI statements simulating human emotions or romantic involvement, adult-minor role-play and sexual content, and it required protocols for responding to users who express suicidal thoughts or self-harm. It also limited how operators could use and share user data. The House passed the bill 43-13, the Senate passed it 28-0, and the House gave final approval 35-20. Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2311 on June 19, 2026, saying it limited damages for families, barred families from bringing their own lawsuits, and tied the state's hands in enforcement.

Full entry · Bill text
Blocked / in litigation
New Mexico v. Meta public nuisance ruling (2026)

New Mexico · New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, No. D-101-CV-2023-02838 (N.M. 1st Jud. Dist., Aug. 10, 2026) (Biedscheid, J.)

On August 10, 2026 Judge Bryan Biedscheid of New Mexico's First Judicial District declared Meta's products a PUBLIC NUISANCE and ordered $567 million in damages. Combined with an earlier $375 million verdict, the total against Meta in this case reaches $942 MILLION. It is the largest judgment in this dataset and one of very few instances anywhere of public nuisance doctrine being applied to a social media product rather than to a physical hazard. But the most consequential part of the ruling is what the judge said he could NOT do. Biedscheid wrote that the court CANNOT order Meta to request children to submit personal data or be passively tracked online, EVEN FOR AGE-VERIFICATION PURPOSES — because New Mexico's Child's Online Privacy Act DATES FROM 1998 and does not authorise it. So a court willing to find a company liable for nearly a billion dollars still found itself unable to order the single remedy most directly aimed at the harm, because the governing statute predates the problem by a quarter-century. That is the clearest illustration in this dataset of what happens when enforcement outruns legislation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez responded by saying he would propose stronger age assurance legislation to the New Mexico Legislature, describing it as an opportunity to incorporate rapidly evolving technology. Meta disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal both this award and the earlier verdict; against roughly $60 billion of 2025 profit the financial penalty is not, by itself, decisive.

Full entry · News report
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Illinois Children's Social Media Safety Act — algorithmic recommendations ban for minors

Illinois · Effective January 1, 2028 · Illinois HB5511, Children's Social Media Safety Act (signed July 31, 2026; effective January 1, 2028)

Illinois's Children's Social Media Safety Act, signed by Governor Pritzker on July 31, 2026, bans social media platforms from using algorithmic content recommendations for users they know to be minors — restricting feeds to only content the user searched for or from accounts the user chose to follow. It requires operating system providers to verify user age at account setup and share an age-category signal with platforms. It mandates default privacy settings for minors that limit location sharing, nighttime notifications (banned 10 pm – 7 am), and digital currency features. The Illinois Attorney General may enforce violations with civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation. The law takes effect January 1, 2028.

Full entry · News report
Enacted (not yet in effect)
RI AI Companion Self-Harm Safety (2026)

Rhode Island · Effective January 1, 2027 · R.I. Pub. Laws 2026, ch. 376 (S 2195 Sub A as amended) and ch. 375 (H 7350 Sub A as amended), R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 6-64 — enacted June 22, 2026; effective January 1, 2027

Rhode Island enacted S 2195 / H 7350 on June 22, 2026, and the law takes effect January 1, 2027. Companies that offer AI companion chatbots must build in protocols for users who express possible suicidal thoughts, self-harm or intent to physically harm others, and must then point the user to crisis services such as a suicide hotline or crisis text line. The chatbot must tell users at the start of a conversation, and at least every three hours during it, that they are not talking to a human. Starting July 1, 2027, operators must file yearly reports with the Attorney General on how often the safety protocols were triggered. The Attorney General enforces the law, with civil penalties up to $15,000 per day, directed to suicide prevention programs.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oregon SB 1546 (AI companion chatbot disclosure + private right of action)

Oregon · Effective January 1, 2027 · Or. SB 1546 (2026 Reg. Sess.), Or. Laws 2026, ch. 85 — effective January 1, 2027

Oregon SB 1546 (Oregon Laws 2026, chapter 85), signed March 31, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, regulates operators of 'AI companions' — chatbots designed to simulate a sustained human-like platonic, intimate or romantic relationship. Operators must clearly tell users they are talking to AI when a reasonable person could think it was a human; must have a suicide/self-harm protocol that refers users to the 988 lifeline (or a youthline for users under 25) and blocks content encouraging self-harm; and must publish an annual report on crisis referrals. When the operator knows or has reason to believe a user is a minor, the companion must disclose it is AI, remind the minor at least every three hours to take a break, avoid sexual content, avoid claiming to be human or simulating romance or emotional dependence, and avoid engagement-maximizing rewards and guilt-tripping when the minor tries to leave. Anyone who suffers an ascertainable loss can sue for the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus an injunction and attorney fees.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
SC H 4591 Stop HARM from Addictive Social Media Act (2026)

SC · Effective January 1, 2027 · S.C. H 4591 (126th G.A., 2026) — signed May 19, 2026; eff. Jan. 1, 2027

South Carolina H 4591, the Stop HARM from Addictive Social Media Act, prohibits social media platforms from deploying addictive algorithmic design features to users under 18. Covered platforms must disable infinite scroll, autoplay, and similar compulsive-engagement features for minor users without parental consent; must not push notifications to minors during school hours (7 AM–3 PM) or late night (10 PM–6 AM) without parental authorization; and may not use algorithmic recommendation systems that exploit minors' psychological vulnerabilities to drive engagement. Platforms must implement age verification. Signed May 19, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 2071 digital wellness curriculum (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 2071 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — digital wellness in middle and high school health education (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027)

California Assembly Bill 2071 integrates DIGITAL WELLNESS into middle and high school health classes. Students are to be taught to identify unhealthy technology habits, protect their personal safety, and EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF DIGITAL CONTENT — which is media and AI literacy placed inside the health curriculum rather than a computer science elective. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. Two things distinguish this bill. It was CO-AUTHORED BY STUDENTS, which is unusual for any statute and especially for one governing their own schooling. And it was publicly SUPPORTED by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposed AB 1709 in the same signing package on First Amendment grounds. EFF praised AB 2071 as 'an affirmative and constitutional way' to approach youth online safety, on the principle that real digital safety comes from preparation, not isolation. That contrast is the reason this entry sits alongside the restriction-based measures rather than being treated as a minor curriculum bill: California signed, on a single day, both a measure that limits what minors may access and a measure that equips them to handle it, and the civil liberties community drew a sharp line between the two approaches.

Full entry · Legal analysis
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1043 Digital Age Assurance Act (+ AB 1856)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. AB 1043 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), the Digital Age Assurance Act (signed Oct. 13, 2025, operative Jan. 1, 2027), as extended by Cal. AB 1856 (2026)

California's Digital Age Assurance Act puts age-checking at the operating system layer rather than at each app or website. When someone sets up a device account, the OS provider — Apple, Google and the like — must present an interface asking for the user's birth date or age. The OS then passes along, to any app developer who asks, WHICH OF FOUR AGE BRACKETS that user falls into: under 13, 13 to under 16, 16 to under 18, or at least 18. It does NOT verify that the answer is true, and it does NOT hand over the birth date itself. App developers must request that signal when an app is downloaded and when it launches, and must treat it as the primary indicator of the user's age unless they have clear and convincing evidence otherwise. The California Attorney General enforces it, at $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and $7,500 per affected child for intentional ones. There is no private right of action. AB 1856, signed in the September 2026 child-safety package, clarifies and extends this — formalizing the non-identifying bracket signals from both operating systems and app stores, and protecting open-source systems from the compliance burden. WHY THIS BELONGS IN A DATASET ABOUT AI PROTECTIONS: it is the plumbing the rest of California's child-safety AI law depends on. AB 1709 bans addictive feed features for users under 16 and expects platforms to establish age through AB 1043. SB 1119, Adam's Law, imposes session limits, parental notification and independent child-safety audits on AI companion chatbots used by minors. Both need to know who is a minor. This statute is how they find out.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
Illinois HB 3851 — deepfake cyberbullying in schools (2026)

Illinois · Effective July 1, 2026 · Ill. H.B. 3851, 104th Gen. Assemb. (eff. July 1, 2026) (amending the Ill. School Code)

Illinois has written AI deepfakes into the part of the School Code that governs bullying. Under House Bill 3851, signed in August 2025 and effective July 1, 2026, the statutory definition of 'cyber-bullying' now includes posting or distributing an unauthorized digital replica of a student by electronic means. A digital replica means an AI-generated or electronically altered representation of a person's voice, image or likeness; it is unauthorized when the depicted person did not consent. The law also makes explicit that bullying includes posting or distributing sexually explicit images. The practical effect is jurisdictional: school districts can now act on deepfake incidents under their bullying policies, rather than being left to argue about whether an AI-generated image of a student counts as bullying at all. The change applies from the 2026-2027 school year, and districts across Illinois had to update their policies and procedures to match. Alongside it, the Illinois State Board of Education was required to develop statewide guidance on artificial intelligence in schools by July 1, 2026, expected to cover AI-generated false representations of individuals. The problem is not hypothetical: a 2024 Center for Democracy & Technology survey found 40% of K-12 public school students knew of a deepfake involving someone at their school, and 15% knew of a sexually explicit deepfake depicting a member of their school community, while more than 60% of teachers said their school had not shared any policy on AI-generated sexual imagery.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Maryland AI Ready Schools Act, SB 720 (2026)

Maryland · Effective June 1, 2026 · Md. S.B. 720 (2026 Reg. Sess.), Md. Laws ch. 634 (Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act), effective June 1, 2026

Maryland enacted the Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act on May 26, 2026, when Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 720 into law as Chapter 634. It took effect on June 1, 2026. The law does five things. It requires the Maryland State Department of Education to give AI guidance and best practices to local education agencies, educators, parents and students. It requires every local school system to CREATE ITS OWN POLICY governing the use of artificial intelligence — that is the mandate that produced the wave of Maryland district AI policies in summer 2026. It establishes the Maryland AI Education Collaborative on Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education to study, report on and make recommendations about AI use in each local school system; the Collaborative is temporary and ends May 31, 2028. It requires MSDE to develop and publish a RUBRIC and other evaluative tools so districts can assess AI products, and districts must use that rubric, rather than each district improvising its own vendor review. And it requires AI literacy to be built into the state's computer science and workforce preparation standards for kindergarten through grade twelve by June 1, 2027, alongside professional development for educators and school leaders. The compliance clock is the part districts feel: each local school system must have an aligned policy within 120 days of the release of the MSDE guidance. Caroline County's policy, indexed separately, is one of the resulting district policies.

Full entry · Bill text
Blocked / in litigation
PA v. Character.AI (Fake Psychiatrist Chatbot)

Pennsylvania · Effective May 1, 2026 · Commonwealth v. Character Technologies, Inc. (Pa. Commonwealth Ct., filed May 1, 2026)

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro filed suit in Commonwealth Court on May 1, 2026, alleging that Character.AI's companion chatbot 'Emilie' impersonated a licensed Pennsylvania psychiatrist and provided ongoing psychiatric advice and treatment to users without a license. The Shapiro administration seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Character.AI to clearly disclose that its chatbots are not licensed mental health professionals and cannot provide medical treatment.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
SC H 3431 Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (2026)

SC · Effective March 1, 2026 · S.C. H 3431 (126th G.A., 2026) — signed Feb. 5, 2026; eff. March 1, 2026

South Carolina H 3431, the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, requires online platforms and services likely to be accessed by children under 18 to prioritize children's best interests. Covered companies must conduct data protection impact assessments before launching features accessible to minors, set privacy controls to their highest protective level by default for child users, minimize data collection, prohibit profiling children for commercial purposes without verifiable parental consent, and disclose how algorithms affect what content children see. Signed by Governor McMaster February 5, 2026; operational March 1, 2026.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Ohio statewide school AI policy mandate (2026)

Ohio · Effective September 30, 2025 · Ohio — statutory requirement that public school districts adopt an artificial intelligence policy (effective for the 2026-27 school year)

Under a new state law, every Ohio public school district is REQUIRED to adopt a formal artificial intelligence policy, with the requirement biting as the 2026-27 school year began. Ohio is reported as the FIRST STATE IN THE NATION to impose such a requirement. Districts have a choice of route: they may customize their own guidelines, or they may adopt the policy created by the Ohio Department of Education. That second option is what makes the mandate workable. A requirement that every district write an AI policy from scratch would fall hardest on small and rural districts with no technology staff and no capacity to evaluate vendor claims; offering a state-drafted model means compliance is achievable everywhere, and a district that does nothing else can still adopt the default. Maryland took a similar approach in the same period through its AI Ready Schools Act, which requires every local education agency to adopt a policy within 120 days of state guidance and directs the state to publish an evaluative rubric for AI tools — but Ohio is credited with being first to make the district policy itself mandatory. The state mandate requires districts to set official guidelines governing how STUDENTS AND STAFF use AI in the classroom, and local leaders are described as balancing classroom integration against safeguards for privacy, academic integrity and foundational learning.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Arizona HB 2678 — AI-generated CSAM criminalized

Arizona · Effective September 27, 2025 · Arizona HB 2678, 57th Leg., 1st R.S. (2025); amends A.R.S. §§ 13-3553 et seq. to criminalize AI-generated CSAM

Arizona House Bill 2678, passed in the 57th Legislature's 1st Regular Session and signed by Governor Katie Hobbs in approximately September 2025, criminalizes artificial intelligence-generated and computer-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in Arizona. The law expands the existing definition of 'visual depiction' in Arizona's child exploitation statutes to explicitly include digitally generated, AI-generated, and computer-generated images, meaning such images are treated the same as real photographs of child sexual exploitation. It also updates the definition of 'minor' within child-exploitation statutes to be consistent with this expanded scope. Offenses involving victims under 15 years old are classified as 'dangerous crimes against children,' carrying enhanced mandatory sentencing under Arizona law. The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline endorsed the bill. The law's first known prosecution came in May 2026 when a Gilbert, Arizona man was charged with more than 20 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for AI-generated images.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Raine v. OpenAI

CA · Effective August 26, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Court record
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Florida State Board of Education AI rules, K-12 and state colleges (2026)

Florida · Fla. State Board of Education — two artificial intelligence rule sets for K-12 schools and the state college system, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026

Florida's State Board of Education unanimously approved two new sets of artificial intelligence rules on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 — one covering K-12 schools, the other covering Florida's state colleges. They are not bans. Henry Mack said the state is not trying to ban the technology: 'We've never banned access to computers in the classroom, we've never banned access to the internet, and likewise we'll never ban access to AI. It's about using it prudently and effectively.' What the K-12 rule actually does is push the decision down and add a consent gate. Every school district in Florida will have to develop LOCAL POLICIES governing which AI tools can be used and how they can be used. And parents will be NOTIFIED when certain AI instructional tools are approved, and will have to GIVE PERMISSION BEFORE THEIR CHILD DIRECTLY INTERACTS WITH THEM. That parental-consent requirement is the substantive protection here and it is stronger than the disclosure-only posture of most state education AI guidance. Not everyone on the board was comfortable. Member Layla Collins raised concerns about students becoming too reliant on the technology — 'It should not replace learning good practices' — and Mack agreed the goal is to complement rather than replace learning. The Florida Education Association's vice president, Carol Gauronskas, said she is pleased overall but that the test is implementation: whether it becomes more work for districts or something smoothly implemented. AI is already deployed in Florida districts — Hillsborough County teachers use the MagicSchool AI platform.

Full entry · News report
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Hawaii AI Companion Safety Act (Act 248)

Hawaii · HI SB 3001 CD1 (2026)

Hawaii enacted a law (Act 248, signed July 14, 2026) requiring AI companion chatbot operators to clearly disclose users are talking to AI, implement self-harm and suicidal-ideation protocols, protect minors from manipulative engagement techniques and sexually explicit content, provide parental tools, and file annual reports with the state Behavioral Health Administration.

Full entry · Bill text
Blocked / in litigation
KY AG v. Character.AI chatbot suit (2026)

Kentucky · Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Character Technologies, Inc. (Franklin Cir. Ct., filed Jan. 8, 2026)

Kentucky's attorney general sued the company behind Character.AI, saying its chatbot companions prey on children who can't tell real friends from artificial ones and have encouraged self-harm, suicide and isolation. The state asks the court to stop deceptive practices and impose penalties. It was described as the first state lawsuit against an AI chatbot company.

Full entry · News report
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Idaho Conversational AI Safety Act (chatbot disclosure + crisis protocol)

Idaho · Effective July 1, 2027 · Idaho SB 1297 (2026), ch. 249

Idaho's Conversational AI Safety Act requires operators of conversational AI services to clearly disclose that a user is interacting with AI whenever a reasonable person could be misled into thinking it is human. Operators must adopt a protocol to respond to users who express suicidal ideation, including making reasonable efforts to refer them to crisis resources, and may not claim to provide professional mental or behavioral health care. There are added protections for minor users, including persistent AI disclosures and parental controls for younger children.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Iowa SF 2417 (Conversational AI Safety Act)

Iowa · Effective July 1, 2027 · Iowa S.F. 2417, 91st Gen. Assemb. (2026), applies July 1, 2027

Iowa requires operators of conversational AI services to clearly disclose that a user is interacting with artificial intelligence — through a persistent disclaimer or a notice repeated at least every three hours of continuous use — whenever a reasonable person might otherwise believe they are talking to a human. Operators must adopt protocols to respond to user messages about suicidal ideation or self-harm, including referring the user to crisis resources, and may not represent that the service provides professional psychological or behavioral health care, with extra safeguards for minors.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Nebraska LB 525 (AI chatbot disclosure & crisis protocol)

Nebraska · Effective July 1, 2027 · Neb. Laws 2026, LB 525, Secs. 12-18 (Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act)

Nebraska's Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act regulates publicly available AI chatbots that simulate human conversation. When a reasonable person would be misled into thinking they are talking to a human, the operator must clearly disclose that they are interacting with AI, and minors must always be told they are interacting with AI. Operators must adopt a protocol for responding to messages about suicidal thoughts or self-harm by referring users to crisis services, and must not program the service to claim it provides professional mental or behavioral health care.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 540 (GA Chatbot Safety)

Georgia · Effective July 1, 2027 · Ga. SB 540 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), signed May 15, 2026; effective July 1, 2027

Georgia — the first Republican-led state to do so — enacted a chatbot safety law. Operators must tell users they're talking to AI, verify ages, give parents controls, and follow crisis protocols (like referring to the 988 lifeline) when users express suicidal thoughts. Chatbots talking to minors can't claim to be sentient, produce sexual content, simulate romance, encourage secrets from adults, or fake distress when a child ends the chat. No carve-out for chatbots inside big platforms. Effective July 1, 2027.

Full entry · Statute
Enacted (not yet in effect)
CA AB 2148 no-AI school employees (2026)

CA · Effective January 1, 2027 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
HB 2225 (WA Chatbot Safety)

Washington · Effective January 1, 2027 · Wash. ESHB 2225, Ch. 168, Laws of 2026 (new chapter in Title 19 RCW); enforced via ch. 19.86 RCW

Washington requires AI companion chatbots to clearly tell users they are talking to an AI, not a person — at the start of a conversation and at least every three hours (every hour for known minors or bots aimed at minors). Operators must have crisis protocols that refer users expressing suicidal thoughts or self-harm to a suicide hotline or crisis text line, and must shield minors from sexual content and manipulative engagement tactics. Violations are unfair or deceptive practices under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, so consumers can sue and the Attorney General can enforce. Effective January 1, 2027.

Full entry · Bill text
74 more
CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act) · Connecticut · In effect
KS Synthetic CSAM Law · Kansas · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-308 (felony to build/distribute AI systems made to create child porn) · Wyoming · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-701 (felony to build/distribute AI systems meant to promote self-harm) · Wyoming · In effect
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: G · Utah State Board of Education (USBE) · In effect
AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools · Ohio Department of Education and Workforce · In effect
New Hampshire HB 143 (AI chatbot child-safety) · New Hampshire · In effect
California SB 243 (companion chatbots: AI disclosure + suicide-safety protocol) · California · In effect
Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell · California Department of Education · In effect
AI Companion Safeguards Law · New York · In effect
Nebraska LB 383 (AI/computer-generated CSAM) · Nebraska · In effect
TX SB 1621 — AI CSAM Rewrite · Texas · In effect
TX SB 20 — Obscene Material Depicting a Child · Texas · In effect
TX HB 581 — AI Sexual Material Age Verification · Texas · In effect
Texas SB 441 (deepfake NCII crime + website/AI-app/payment-processor liability) · Texas · In effect
CO Intimate Digital Depictions Act (SB25-288) · Colorado · In effect
Minnesota HF 2432 (AI-generated CSAM) · Minnesota · In effect
ND HB 1386 (CSAM laws cover computer-generated/AI images of minors) · North Dakota · In effect
West Virginia SB 198 (criminalizes AI/computer-generated child pornography) · West Virginia · In effect
SC AI CSAM / Deepfake Laws · South Carolina · In effect
Montana SB 413 (crime to share explicit deepfakes) · Montana · In effect
New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0 · New Mexico Public Education Department · In effect
Arkansas AI CSAM Law · Arkansas · In effect
Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence · University System of Georgia (USG) · In effect
NJ Deceptive AI Deepfakes Act · New Jersey · In effect
WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2) · West Virginia Department of Education · In effect
CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide · California State University (CSU System) · In effect
California AB 1831 (CSAM laws now cover AI-generated/altered material) · California · In effect
PA Deepfake/CSAM Law (Act 125) · Pennsylvania · In effect
NC HB 591 (AI CSAM, deepfake intimate images & sextortion) · North Carolina · In effect
Oklahoma HB 3642 (AI-generated CSAM is a crime) · Oklahoma · In effect
Alabama Child Protection Act (AI-generated CSAM) · Alabama · In effect
Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K · Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) · In effect
Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education · Colorado Department of Education · In effect
Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 · Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) · In effect
Kentucky HB 207 (computer-generated CSAM) · Kentucky · In effect
Iowa AI CSAM Law · Iowa · In effect
Florida Generated CSAM Law (AI-generated) · Florida · In effect
GA SB 466 (no 'it's AI' defense for CSAM) · Georgia · In effect
Oregon SB 619 (opt out of profiling; child-data & assessment rules) · Oregon · In effect
Tennessee HB 2163 (AI-generated child abuse images are illegal 'material') · Tennessee · In effect
Virginia SB 731 (AI/computer-generated CSAM covered) · Virginia · In effect
Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools · Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) · In effect
Washington HB 1999 (criminalizes AI/fabricated CSAM and nonconsensual fake intimate images) · Washington · In effect
AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies · Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) · In effect
Utah H.B. 148 (computer-generated CSAM & intimate images count as illegal) · Utah · In effect
Utah H.B. 238 (AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal) · Utah · In effect
Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms · Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) · In effect
WI AI CSAM Law · Wisconsin · In effect
SD AI CSAM Law · South Dakota · In effect
NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Consider · North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) · In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G · Oregon Department of Education · In effect
Maryland CSAM Law (computer-generated images) · Maryland · In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition · New York State Education Department · In effect
TX HB 2700 — AI/Altered CSAM · Texas · In effect
New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on · New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) · In effect
LA Unlawful Deepfakes Law · Louisiana · In effect
Virginia VCDPA (opt out of profiling, $7,500/violation) · Virginia · In effect
Missouri RSMo 573.010 (computer-generated CSAM) · Missouri · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-303 (child-porn definition covers computer-generated images) · Wyoming · In effect
PA HB 2786 school AI policy requirement · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
NJ S4758 AI companion disclosure · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
NJ A5607 chatbot privacy bill · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
NJ S4701 GAI Accountability Act · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
PA HB 2787 ban on AI for school mental health services · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
Missouri Deepfake & Digital Media Protection Act · Missouri · Proposed / pending
Massachusetts AI-CSAM Criminalization Act (Senate) · Massachusetts · Proposed / pending
Massachusetts AI-CSAM Criminalization Act (House) · Massachusetts · Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 348 (AI in Schools) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
Guam Bill 171-38 (NCII / Deepfakes) · Guam · Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 760 (AI Deepfake NCII) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
Missouri Taylor Swift Act (SB 1117) · Missouri · Expired
Alaska AI-CSAM and Deepfake Criminalization Act · Alaska · Expired

County children's online safety rules (15)

In effect
York School District SC AI Responsible Use policy (2026)

York County, SC · Effective August 11, 2026 · York School District, S.C. — Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use policy (adopted August 11, 2026, unanimous Board of Trustees vote)

The York School District is the FIRST of York County, South Carolina's four school districts to enact an official policy for 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESPONSIBLE USE.' The district's Board of Trustees approved it unanimously in August 2026, as York County's districts made decisions about screen time, AI and technology use for the returning 2026-27 school year. The 'first in the county' framing is the part worth recording, because it marks where the diffusion curve actually was in South Carolina. Ohio had by then become the first state to REQUIRE every public school district to have an AI policy, and Maryland's AI Ready Schools Act obliges every local education agency to adopt one within 120 days of state guidance. South Carolina had no such mandate, so districts there were acting one at a time and on their own initiative — and in York County, three of four still had not. A district adopting voluntarily in a state without a mandate is doing something different from one complying with a deadline: it has to write or source the policy itself, with no state model to fall back on. The contrast with Ohio's approach, where a district that does nothing else can simply adopt the state's own model policy, is the practical argument for state-level mandates with default text. The policy's substantive terms are not stated in the located source.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Brevard Public Schools FL AI policy 7540.08 (2026)

Brevard County, FL · Effective July 28, 2026 · Brevard Cnty. Sch. Bd. Policy 7540.08 (adopted July 28, 2026)

The Brevard County School Board adopted Policy 7540.08 on artificial intelligence at its July 28, 2026 meeting, setting boundaries for AI use across the district before the new school year. Every AI application or tool has to be vetted for privacy, data security and educational value before it can be used. Students' personal information may not be entered into or submitted to any AI system. Anything an AI generates must support Florida's state-mandated curriculum and standards, and teachers and other educators must check AI-generated content for accuracy, bias and appropriateness rather than using it as-is. Teachers need permission from a supervisor before bringing AI into their classrooms or curriculum. The policy was not adopted without friction: at an earlier board workshop, District 1 board chair Megan Wright said she found the AI world 'extremely uncomfortable' and thought parts of the policy were confusing. Brevard is one of Florida's larger districts, covering the Space Coast.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Wakulla County FL schools AI policy (2026)

Wakulla County, FL · Effective July 27, 2026 · Wakulla County School District, Fla. — artificial intelligence policy guideline (approved July 27, 2026)

The Wakulla County School Board approved an AI policy guideline at its meeting on July 27, 2026, ahead of the school year. Wakulla took the permissive route — the district ALLOWS the use of AI — but attached three concrete conditions that matter more than the permission. First, users may not upload personally identifiable information into any AI tool or platform unless the district authorizes it. That is a data-protection rule with real teeth in a school setting, where the PII at stake is children's. Second, employees are expected not to rely on AI output without reviewing it for accuracy AND BIAS — naming bias explicitly, not just error. Third, students may not use AI to complete assignments in place of their own thinking. Superintendent Richard Myhre framed the district's approach simply: the idea behind AI is to use it to strengthen the district's processes. Wakulla County is a small coastal district south of Tallahassee. Its policy arrived as Florida districts across the state were writing AI rules for the 2026-27 year and as the Florida State Board of Education moved to regulate AI in public colleges and K-12 schools — so this district policy sits underneath a state framework that was still forming.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Tucson Unified School District AI policy revisions (2026)

Tucson, AZ · Effective September 1, 2026 · Tucson Unified School District, Ariz. — AI policy revisions adopted 3-2 (2026)

Tucson Unified School District's governing board approved a trio of AI policy revisions in a close 3-2 vote, and the direction is the opposite of most school AI measures in this dataset: TUSD EXPANDED student access rather than restricting it. The revisions do three things. They EXPAND THE AI DEFINITION TO INCLUDE AGENTIC AI — systems that take actions rather than only generating text, which most district policies written a year earlier do not contemplate at all. They ALLOW MIDDLE SCHOOLERS access to approved AI-enhanced platforms such as CodeHS and Canva. And they ADDRESS EMBEDDED AI IN PRODUCTIVITY SUITES, which is the provision most districts are missing entirely — AI features now ship inside the word processors and presentation tools schools already license, so a policy that governs only standalone AI tools does not reach most of the AI a student actually touches. The dissent is recorded because it is substantive rather than procedural. Board members Val Romero and Sadie Shaw voted no, and Shaw explained why: 'I do think our district needs to have a policy, but personally, I would like our policy to be more prohibitive.' That is a disagreement about direction inside a district that already accepts it needs rules. Set against New York City's one-year prohibition for grades 2-K through 8, and Haddonfield New Jersey's proposed K-5 ban, TUSD represents the permissive pole of the same 2026 debate — and it arrived there by two votes.

Full entry · News report
In effect
FCPS formal generative AI restrictions — elementary ban, secondary authorization required

Fairfax County Public Schools, VA · Effective August 1, 2026 · Fairfax County Public Schools School Board formal policy action on generative AI restrictions (adopted July 23, 2026; effective SY 2026-27)

The Fairfax County School Board voted on July 23, 2026 to adopt formal generative AI restrictions that take effect for the 2026-27 school year. Elementary students are prohibited from using any generative AI tools. Secondary students may only use generative AI if they receive written authorization from a principal, superintendent, or designee for a specific project. Pre-K and kindergarten students are banned from using school-issued tablets and laptops, with exceptions for students whose IEP, 504 plan, or multilingual learner status requires device access. The restrictions supersede the district's prior interim guidance (FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning, September 2025), which had approved certain tools including Adobe Express and a ChatGPT pilot for teachers. Parental opt-out for school-issued devices and a YouTube content firewall were also under consideration.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC · Effective October 28, 2025 · Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools board approved Board Policy O-AIU on Oct. 28, 2025, requiring an AI committee to review any AI system using staff or student data, mandating FERPA-compliant vetting, age-appropriate tools, and barring AI from replacing human decision-making.

Full entry · News report
In effect
District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use

Washington County School District, UT · Effective September 8, 2025 · District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use

Washington County (UT) School District's board policy frames AI as a teacher assistant requiring human oversight, generally prohibits using confidential or FERPA-protected student data with AI tools, and bars students from using AI to plagiarize, generate deepfakes, or bypass security filters.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (

Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL · Effective August 12, 2025 · Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (tiered framework)

The Miami-Dade County Public Schools board approved a measure directing staff to create comprehensive ethical AI guidelines for students and teachers, including a tiered use framework and misuse-consequences, with recommendations due back to the board.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificia

Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL · Effective June 2, 2025 · Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificial Intelligence Implementation Guide

Hillsborough County Public Schools adopted Board Policy 2130 and an AI Implementation Guide setting age-based generative-AI limits (no unsupervised use before 8th grade; written parental consent and teacher approval thereafter) built on six guiding principles.

Full entry · News report
In effect
BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft

Broward County Public Schools, FL · Effective November 1, 2024 · BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft Copilot) rollout guidance

Broward County Public Schools stood up an AI Task Force in November 2024 that produced responsible-use resources for administrators, teachers, and students alongside a large districtwide Microsoft Copilot rollout addressing academic integrity and AI literacy.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Moni

Central Bucks School District, PA · Effective March 1, 2023 · Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Monitoring Trial

Central Bucks SD (PA) authorized a district-wide trial of GoGuardian Beacon to conduct 24/7 AI monitoring of middle- and high-school students' online activity on district devices, with a potential $114,000+ subscription pending trial-data review.

Full entry · News report
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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
PA Allegheny AFST

Allegheny County, PA · Effective August 1, 2016 · Allegheny County DHS AFST Methodology (May 2019 update)

Allegheny County deploys a predictive risk model — the Allegheny Family Screening Tool — to score child-welfare hotline calls. Decisions to screen-in cases for investigation incorporate AFST scores. The DOJ has investigated the tool for ADA discrimination concerns; the county continues to operate it with documented protocols.

Full entry · Agency page
Proposed / pending
Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)

Wake County Public School System, NC · Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)

Wake County Public School System advanced draft Policy 1910 on generative AI on June 17, 2026, which discourages AI detectors, requires students to disclose and explain AI use and cite it, and bars sharing student PII with certain AI systems, pending board approval.

Full entry · News report
Proposed / pending
Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Moni

Fort Bend Independent School District, TX · Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Monitoring Procurement

Fort Bend ISD's board approved a procurement of GoGuardian web content filtering and monitoring modules not to exceed $1.6 million over five years, part of a wave of Houston-area districts (including Humble ISD and Cypress-Fairbanks ISD) deploying AI-driven student-device monitoring.

Full entry · News report

City / local children's online safety rules (76)

In effect
NYC DOE Generative AI Moratorium (K-8, 2026-27)

New York City, NY · Effective September 2, 2026 · NYC DOE Chancellor Regulation — Generative AI Moratorium (Sept. 2, 2026); announced by Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels

Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels imposed a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for grades pre-K (2-K) through 8th grade across New York City public schools, effective for the 2026-2027 school year. Affects approximately 600,000 students — nearly two-thirds of the city's 900,000-student enrollment. Companion chatbots prohibited across all grades. Over 38 previously-allowed programs discontinued or disabled. Five limited AI pilots allowed for up to 50,000 high school students in general education; all high schoolers gain twice-yearly AI literacy classes. A new Technology in Schools Coalition will study outcomes and publish recommendations. The nation's largest school district becomes the most restrictive on student AI use in the country.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NYC schools generative AI moratorium through 8th grade (2026)

New York City, NY · Effective September 2, 2026 · New York City Public Schools — generative AI moratorium for grades 2-K through 8 (announced September 2, 2026, effective school year 2026-27)

On September 2, 2026 New York City announced a one-year ban on student use of generative artificial intelligence in its public schools from 2-K through eighth grade. It is the broadest generative AI moratorium adopted by any school system in the United States, and because New York City runs the country's largest school district it reaches roughly 600,000 students — about two-thirds of the district's enrollment. Student-facing AI tools and companion chatbots are prohibited for those grades while a coalition of educators, parents, experts and elected officials studies what the technology does to children and recommends what should happen next. The policy is not a blanket prohibition. There are carve-outs for students with disabilities and multilingual learners, and for settings such as career readiness programs and computer science. High school is treated differently again: public high schoolers will take two AI critical thinking classes during the 2026-27 school year, and a small number of high school classrooms will be allowed to use AI pilot platforms under a teacher's direct supervision. The same announcement set new limits on classroom screen time. The distinction worth holding onto is that the district paused AI use by young students while requiring older students to study AI — a restriction paired with a literacy requirement rather than a simple ban.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
LAUSD student generative AI moratorium (2026)

Los Angeles, CA · Effective September 2, 2026 · L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. — Student Generative AI Moratorium (2026-27 school year)

Los Angeles Unified has blocked student access to generative AI tools on district-issued devices for all grades, beginning with the 2026-27 school year. Administrators confirmed it at a committee meeting on September 2, 2026. The change is significant in scale — roughly 378,000 students in the second-largest school district in the United States — and it is a reversal: before 2026-27, students aged 13 and over could use generative AI after completing a guidelines course. Two things distinguish it from New York City's restriction announced days earlier. First, NYC's moratorium covers 2-K through 8th grade with carve-outs; LAUSD's covers all students on district devices. Second, LAUSD's arrived administratively rather than by board policy: officials implemented it to comply with the district's new screen time policy, and board members and parents learned of it afterwards. Board member Nick Melvoin said it was not well publicised and encouraged the district to do more. That procedural route matters for how durable the measure is — it was an implementation decision, not a governing-board vote, and could be revisited the same way.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Blanchester OH schools AI policy EDEC (Jun. 29, 2026)

Blanchester, OH · Effective June 29, 2026 · Blanchester Local Schools (OH) Board of Education, policy EDEC adoption, June 29, 2026, under Ohio HB 96 mandate

The Blanchester Local Schools board in Clinton County, Ohio adopted a district artificial intelligence policy (policy EDEC) on June 29, 2026, meeting the July 1, 2026 deadline set by Ohio House Bill 96. HB 96 made Ohio the first state in the nation to require every school district to adopt an AI policy — the statewide mandate is the context that makes this small-district adoption notable. The policy governs AI use in the district under the state-mandated framework.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Portland Public Schools genAI pause (Jun. 23, 2026)

Portland, OR · Effective June 23, 2026 · Portland Public Schools (OR) Board of Education unanimous resolution via budget amendment, June 23, 2026, pausing generative AI expansion

The Portland Public Schools board in Oregon voted unanimously on June 23, 2026 to pause the expansion of generative AI in the district. Adopted as a budget amendment championed by board member La Forte, the resolution requires district staff to report back within 120 days on the district's inventory of generative AI tools, its contracts, and how vendors handle student data — and requires advance board authorization before the district signs any generative AI contract. The pause puts elected-board oversight between AI vendors and Oregon's largest school district while the data practices are examined.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Ralston NE school board staff AI use policy (2026)

Ralston Public Schools, NE · Effective July 27, 2026 · Ralston Public Schools, Neb. — board policy governing staff use of artificial intelligence tools (July 2026)

Ralston's school board approved a new policy governing STAFF USE of artificial intelligence tools, adopted alongside the 2026-27 staff handbook, annual teacher training requirements and other revisions. The STAFF focus is what distinguishes it. Most school-district AI policies in this dataset are framed around STUDENTS — academic integrity, which tools pupils may use, whether AI-assisted work counts as their own. A policy aimed at STAFF use addresses a different and in some respects more consequential set of risks: a teacher pasting student work, disciplinary records or IEP content into a consumer chatbot is disclosing protected education records to a third party, which implicates FERPA rather than any honour code. Adopting it in the same motion as the staff handbook and teacher training requirements suggests it is being treated as an employment and professional-practice matter rather than a curriculum one, which is probably the right frame. What the policy actually requires is not established here.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130

Tampa, FL · Effective June 2, 2026 · Hillsborough County FL Public Schools Board Policy 2130 — Emerging Technologies + AI Implementation Guide (2026-06-02)

Adopted Board Policy 2130 with an AI Implementation Guide; authorizes vetted AI primarily for teacher use, withholds student access to the enterprise platform initially, and is extending to AI smart-glasses restrictions in classrooms.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Henrico County VA Schools AI Policy 5-6.6

Henrico, VA · Effective May 12, 2026 · Henrico County VA Public Schools Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems, adopted May 12, 2026

Henrico County Public Schools Board adopted Policy 5-6.6 Artificial Intelligence Systems on May 12, 2026, establishing an AI Task Force (created by board resolution in 2025) to oversee implementation, monitor AI developments, and recommend policy updates. The policy authorizes district-vetted enterprise AI tools, requires human review of AI-generated student-facing content, bars non-consensual deepfakes, and prohibits AI as the sole basis for grading or discipline. Henrico County is a Northern Virginia suburban district serving approximately 51,000 students.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Columbus City Schools AI Policy (teacher discretion, plagiarism rules)

Columbus, OH · Effective March 31, 2026 · Columbus City Schools Board of Education AI Use Policy adoption, March 31, 2026

Columbus City Schools Board of Education voted unanimously on March 31, 2026 to adopt a new artificial intelligence use policy across Ohio's largest school district. The policy gives teachers discretion on whether to allow students to use AI on assignments, treats unauthorized AI use as plagiarism, bans AI-generated deepfakes or derogatory representations of students or staff, and prohibits AI as the sole basis for grading or discipline. Focuses on data privacy, student safety, and academic integrity. Districts were required to adopt AI policies by July 1, 2026 under Ohio HB 96.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)

San Francisco Unified School District, CA · Effective January 20, 2026 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

Charlotte, NC · Effective October 28, 2025 · Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools — Board Policy on Artificial Intelligence (2025-10-28)

Eight-part board policy requiring cross-functional AI committee approval before any system using staff/student data is deployed. Mandates training, age-appropriate tools, public-records and regulatory compliance; AI cannot replace human decision-making.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Township High School District 211

Palatine, IL · Effective October 13, 2025 · Township High School District 211 — AI Use Guidelines (2025-10-13)

D211 guidelines authorize district-vetted enterprise AI tools, bar student entry of PII into non-approved AI, require teacher disclosure of AI use, and prohibit AI as sole basis for grading or discipline.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Greenwich CT Public Schools

Greenwich, CT · Effective September 25, 2025 · Greenwich CT Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2025-09-25)

District-adopted guidelines: enterprise Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini for Education for staff and grades 9-12; bar on consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expectation; ban on AI as sole basis for grading or discipline.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Durham NC Public Schools

Durham, NC · Effective September 25, 2025 · Durham NC Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidelines (2025-09-25)

DPS Board-reviewed guidelines authorize district-vetted enterprise AI tools, require teacher disclosure of AI use in instruction, bar non-consensual deepfakes, prohibit AI-only grading or discipline, and require parental consent for student AI accounts under 13. Anchored in Policy 3225/4312/7320 (Technology Responsible Use).

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Iowa City Community School District

Iowa City, IA · Effective September 25, 2025 · Iowa City Community School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines and Board Policy 605.8R1 (effective September 2025)

Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) guidelines authorize Microsoft Copilot enterprise on district devices; bar student entry of PII into non-approved AI; require teacher disclosure of AI use; and prohibit AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. The district also adopted Board Policy 605.8R1 governing student use of technology including AI.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Prince William County VA Public Schools

Manassas, VA · Effective September 17, 2025 · Prince William County VA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedures (2025-09-17)

District-wide procedures authorize Microsoft Copilot for staff and grades 9-12; ban use of consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expected on graded work; AI cannot make special-education or discipline decisions without human review.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Prince George's County MD Public Schools

Upper Marlboro, MD · Effective September 15, 2025 · Prince George's County MD Public Schools — Generative AI Use Procedure (2025-09-15)

Procedure approved alongside Board Policy 0123: limits enterprise AI access to approved systems only, bars input of student PII or confidential employee records into AI tools, requires professional accountability for AI-generated content, and may result in disciplinary action for policy violations. The procedure is AP 0123, not AP 0500.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Newton MA Public Schools

Newton, MA · Effective September 15, 2025 · Newton MA Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance (2025-09-15)

Newton Public Schools guidance covers vetted enterprise AI tools, classroom disclosure norms, prohibition on AI-generated discipline or special-education decisions, and AI literacy thread in grades 6-12.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Oakland Unified School District

Oakland, CA · Effective September 10, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Cleveland Metropolitan School District

Cleveland, OH · Effective September 9, 2025 · Cleveland Metropolitan School District — AI Acceptable Use Policy (2025-09-09)

Board-adopted AUP: vetted tool list, ban on uploading student records to generative models, AI literacy added to high-school graduation pathway, AI tool vendors must pass district privacy review.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Baltimore City Public Schools

Baltimore, MD · Effective September 9, 2025 · Baltimore City Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidance (2025-09-09)

City Schools districtwide guidance authorizes vetted enterprise AI tools, bars student entry of PII into non-approved AI, requires teacher disclosure of AI use in instruction, and prohibits AI as sole basis for grading or discipline. Anchored in Board Policy IIBE (Acceptable Use).

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Fresno USD AI Guidance

Fresno, CA · Effective September 9, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
AUHSD AI Guidance

Anaheim, CA · Effective September 3, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI

New York, NY · Effective September 1, 2025 · NYC Public Schools Guidance on AI (2025-09-01)

NYC DOE districtwide guidance lists never-allowed uses, then conditional uses with safeguards. Staff barred from entering PII or sensitive info into GenAI tools not approved through ERMA review.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Fairfax County VA Public Schools

Fairfax, VA · Effective September 1, 2025 · Fairfax County VA Public Schools — FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning (Interim) (2025-09-01)

Interim guidance while a board-adopted policy is drafted (Oct 2025). Approved tools include Adobe Express, Google Storybook/LM, ChatGPT for Teachers pilot configured not to train OpenAI models; students cannot be compelled to interact with AI.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
School District of Philadelphia

Philadelphia, PA · Effective September 1, 2025 · School District of Philadelphia — Generative AI Guidelines (PASS program) (2025-09-01)

Approves Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly in a 'walled garden' configuration so user data is not used to train external LLMs. Paired with a three-tier UPenn-developed PD program (PASS).

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Boston Public Schools

Boston, MA · Effective September 1, 2025 · Boston Public Schools — Guidance on AI + Draft Districtwide Policy 2026 (2025-09-01)

Revised 2025 guidance plus a May 2026 draft policy that bans non-sanctioned AI use, non-consensual deepfakes, AI as sole basis for grading/discipline, and PII entry into unapproved tools. Moving toward AI literacy graduation requirement.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Volusia County FL Schools

DeLand, FL · Effective August 26, 2025 · Volusia County FL Schools — AI in the Classroom Guidelines (2025-08-26)

School Board Policy 428 and amendments to the Student Code of Conduct (Policy 208E/208S) govern AI use by Volusia County Schools staff and students. Students may use AI as a support tool for brainstorming, clarifying complex texts, or grammar assistance, but must cite AI assistance and may not submit AI-generated work as their own. Teachers may prohibit AI on specific assignments. The policy safeguards student data privacy and fosters equitable access; violations are handled under the district's existing disciplinary code.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Naperville Community Unit School District 203

Naperville, IL · Effective August 25, 2025 · Naperville Community Unit School District 203 — AI Use Guidance (2025-08-25)

Affluent Chicago suburban district adopted AI guidance: enterprise tools authorized, ban on student AI account creation under 13, AI disclosure expected on graded work, AI cannot be sole basis for placement or discipline.

Full entry · Agency page
46 more
Public Schools of Brookline · Brookline, MA · In effect
Mesa Public Schools AZ · Mesa, AZ · In effect
M-DCPS AI guidance directive (2025) · Miami, FL · In effect
Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook & Permission/Consent Form (SY 25-26) · Houston, TX · In effect
Cherokee County GA School District · Canton, GA · In effect
Loudoun County VA Public Schools · Ashburn, VA · In effect
Dallas ISD AI Handbook (Policies DEC/EIA/FD/FNCA amended) · Dallas, TX · In effect
Lee's Summit MO · Lees Summit, MO · In effect
Culver City CA · Culver City, CA · In effect
Denver Public Schools AI Handbook · Denver, CO · In effect
Howard County MD Public School System · Ellicott City, MD · In effect
Olathe KS · Olathe, KS · In effect
Seattle Public Schools AI Handbook + Superintendent Procedure 2022SP · Seattle, WA · In effect
San Diego Unified School District · San Diego, CA · In effect
Overland Park KS · Overland Park, KS · In effect
Frederick MD · Frederick, MD · In effect
Broward County FL Powered by AI · Fort Lauderdale, FL · In effect
San Francisco Unified School District · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook · Houston Independent School District, TX · In effect
Arlington VA Public Schools · Arlington, VA · In effect
Princeton NJ Public Schools · Princeton, NJ · In effect
Santa Clara County CA Office of Education · San Jose, CA · In effect
Saint Paul Public Schools · Saint Paul, MN · In effect
Olympia WA · Olympia, WA · In effect
Glendale CA · Glendale, CA · In effect
Forsyth County GA Schools · Cumming, GA · In effect
Minneapolis Public Schools · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
Montgomery County MD Public Schools · Rockville, MD · In effect
Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige · Chappaqua Central School District, NY · In effect
Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco) · Golden, CO · In effect
Clark County NV STELLAR AI Framework · Las Vegas, NV · In effect
Chicago Public Schools AI Guidebook · Chicago, IL · In effect
CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff · Chicago Public Schools, IL · In effect
Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo · Vancouver Public Schools, WA · In effect
Gwinnett County GA Public Schools · Lawrenceville, GA · In effect
Long Beach CA · Long Beach, CA · In effect
LAUSD BUL-151113.0 · Los Angeles, CA · In effect
Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief · Peninsula School District, WA · In effect
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera · Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing · Boston, MA · In effect
New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti · Lockport City School District, NY · In effect
Valley View SD v. Archbald / Project Gravity data center suit (2026) · Archbald, PA · Blocked / in litigation
Wake County NC Public School System · Raleigh, NC · In effect
Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic li · New York City Public Schools, NY · Proposed / pending
Haddonfield NJ schools generative AI policy (first reading) · Haddonfield, NJ · Proposed / pending
Orange County FL Public Schools · Orlando, FL · Proposed / pending

All topics · Full directory · Submit a correction