AI consumer protection laws by state

AI Laws USA tracks 548 U.S. AI rules on consumer protection across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.

Federal consumer protection rules (111)

In effect
TVA data center capacity commitment charge (2026)

Tennessee Valley Authority · Effective October 1, 2026 · Tenn. Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs. — Data Center Capacity Commitment Charge (approved Aug. 20, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026)

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Board of Directors approved a separate, higher wholesale rate for data centers on August 20, 2026, effective October 1. New or expanding data center loads above 5 megawatts now fall under a Capacity Commitment Charge attached to TVA's data center rate schedules, designed to recover the incremental capacity costs those customers impose on the system. The headline figures are substantial: upfront capacity commitment charges of roughly $1.5 million per megawatt, payable over three to five years, and an all-in average billing increase for data center customers of about 10%, phased in across three consecutive fiscal years. The stated purpose is to keep residential rates low while still serving growing data center demand. TVA matters here out of proportion to a single utility. It is a federal corporate agency supplying power across seven states, so this is not a state rate case but a regional cost-allocation decision reaching a large share of the Southeast — and TVA is among the first large US utilities to adopt a tariff aimed specifically at AI-driven load. Where most 2026 measures in this dataset restrict where data centers may be built, this one changes what they pay to run.

Full entry · News report
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
In effect
Louis v. SafeRent

D. Mass. · Effective November 20, 2024 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)

SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)

United States · Effective April 1, 2024 · 16 C.F.R. Part 461; 89 Fed. Reg. 15017

The FTC's Impersonation Rule lets the agency directly sue scammers who pretend to be a government agency or a real business — including those who use AI-cloned voices or generated images to do so. Civil penalties can reach $53,088 per violation. The FTC also issued a supplemental notice in February 2024 proposing to extend the rule to all individual impersonation.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
TCPA (AI voice calls)

United States · Effective February 8, 2024 · 47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17

Robocalls using AI-cloned or AI-generated voices are treated like other 'artificial voice' calls: callers need your prior express consent, must identify themselves, and must offer opt-outs for telemarketing. You can personally sue violators for $500 to $1,500 per illegal call.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FAA Part 107 (drones)

United States · Effective August 29, 2016 · 14 C.F.R. Part 107

The core federal rulebook for commercial and recreational small drones (under 55 lb). Operators need a Remote Pilot Certificate, must keep the drone within visual line of sight, fly below 400 ft, avoid most airspace without authorization, and follow operations-over-people limits. Waivers and Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) approvals exist for advanced operators.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
ECOA / Regulation B (AI credit discrimination)

United States · Effective October 28, 1975 · 15 U.S.C. § 1691; 12 C.F.R. Part 1002

Lenders cannot discriminate in credit decisions and must give you specific, accurate reasons when they deny or worsen your credit — even if the decision was made by an AI model. Earlier CFPB guidance said lenders can't hide behind 'black box' algorithms; that guidance was withdrawn in May 2025, but the underlying statute and regulation still require accurate adverse-action notices.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FCRA (AI in credit & background checks)

United States · Effective April 25, 1971 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

When a company uses a consumer report or score — including AI-generated risk scores from background-check and tenant/employment screening firms — to deny you credit, insurance, housing, or a job, it must tell you and identify the agency that supplied the report. You have the right to a free copy of your file and to dispute inaccurate information, no matter how algorithmic the scoring was.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
FTC Act Section 5 (unfair/deceptive AI)

United States · Effective September 26, 1914 · 15 U.S.C. § 45

The FTC's basic consumer-protection law bans unfair or deceptive business practices, and the agency applies it directly to AI. Companies cannot lie about what their AI can do, use AI to deceive people, or sell AI tools designed for fraud. The FTC's 'Operation AI Comply' sweep has brought numerous cases since 2024.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
DOJ ADA Title II Web Rule

United States · Effective April 24, 2027 · 89 Fed. Reg. 31320 (Apr. 24, 2024)

DOJ final rule requiring state and local government web content and mobile apps (including AI-driven services) to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Compliance dates extended to 2027/2028.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FERC Large-Load Interconnection Orders (RM26-4)

United States · Effective June 18, 2026 · FPA § 206 show-cause orders, FERC Docket Nos. EL26-67 through EL26-72 (June 18, 2026), advancing ANOPR Docket No. RM26-4-000

On June 18, 2026, FERC issued tailored show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six major U.S. regional grid operators (PJM, MISO, SPP, CAISO, ISO-NE, and NYISO), directing each to either justify its existing large-load interconnection tariff as just and reasonable or file tariff revisions within 60 days. The orders target the surge in demand from AI data centers and large industrial loads, requiring reforms to study processes, cost transparency to prevent cost-shifting onto ordinary ratepayers, co-location and behind-the-meter accommodation, and new services for flexible large loads. FERC left retail cost-shifting protection to state regulators; reforms apply prospectively and do not disrupt existing deals.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
DOJ-RealPage Consent Decree (algorithmic rent)

United States · Effective May 1, 2026 · United States v. RealPage, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2

In November 2025, the DOJ settled with RealPage — the dominant algorithmic rent-pricing software company — requiring it to stop using competitors' real-time pricing data to coordinate rents. The settlement received preliminary court approval in May 2026 and places RealPage under a court-appointed compliance monitor for seven years. Thousands of property managers used RealPage's software; the DOJ alleged it enabled competing landlords to align rental prices, harming renters across the country.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FTC v. DoNotPay

FTC · Effective January 16, 2025 · In re DoNotPay, Inc., FTC No. C-4796 (Sept. 25, 2024)

The FTC settled with 'AI lawyer' DoNotPay in September 2024 over claims the company falsely marketed an AI chatbot as a substitute for a human lawyer, without ever testing whether its outputs matched a competent attorney's work. Part of the FTC's 'Operation AI Comply' sweep.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FTC v. Evolv

FTC · Effective December 5, 2024 · Federal Trade Commission v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-12940 (D. Mass. Nov. 26, 2024)

The FTC settled with Evolv Technology in November 2024 over claims it falsely marketed its AI-powered scanners as accurately detecting weapons in schools and venues, when in fact the systems missed weapons (including the knife in the Utica, NY school stabbing) and flagged everyday objects. Customers can cancel contracts.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FinCEN deepfake-fraud BSA alert

United States · Effective November 13, 2024 · FinCEN Alert FIN-2024-Alert004 (Nov. 13, 2024)

FinCEN issued an alert telling banks and other financial institutions how to spot — and report — fraud schemes that use generative-AI deepfakes to defeat identity verification. Suspicious activity reports must use the SAR keyword 'FIN-2024-DEEPFAKEFRAUD' so FinCEN can track the trend in synthetic identity and account-takeover fraud.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CFPB AI chatbot circular

United States · Effective October 23, 2024 · CFPB Issue Spotlight (June 2023); CFPB UDAAP / ECOA / TILA enforcement posture (2024)

Building on its 2023 chatbot report, the CFPB has warned that banks and lenders using generative-AI chatbots that mislead consumers — about fees, account terms, or credit denials — face liability under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. Hallucinating chatbots are not a regulatory loophole.

Full entry · Agency page
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
In effect
FTC Operation AI Comply

United States · Effective September 25, 2024 · FTC Operation AI Comply (Sept. 25, 2024)

FTC enforcement sweep announcing five settlements against firms using AI to enable deceptive or unfair conduct. Establishes a baseline of cases for ongoing AI deception enforcement.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FTC Operation AI Comply (Sept. 2024)

FTC · Effective September 25, 2024 · FTC Press Release, Operation AI Comply (Sept. 25, 2024)

On September 25, 2024 the FTC announced 'Operation AI Comply' — a coordinated sweep against five companies (DoNotPay, Rytr, Ascend Ecom, Ecommerce Empire Builders, FBA Machine) accused of using AI claims to defraud consumers. Marked the FTC's first systemic AI enforcement sweep.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
DOJ AI-fraud sentencing guidance

United States · Effective September 23, 2024 · DOJ Criminal Division ECCP (Sept. 23, 2024); Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, ABA White Collar Conf. (Mar. 5, 2024)

The Justice Department updated its corporate compliance guidance in September 2024 to require companies to assess and mitigate AI-related risks, and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco announced in March 2024 that DOJ will seek stiffer sentences when AI is used to commit fraud — treating AI as an aggravating factor.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FCC Lingo Telecom Biden deepfake fine

United States · Effective August 21, 2024 · FCC Consent Decree, DA 24-823 (Aug. 21, 2024)

The FCC fined voice provider Lingo Telecom $1 million for carrying AI-generated robocalls that used a cloned voice of President Biden to suppress votes in the January 2024 New Hampshire primary. It was the first FCC enforcement action against a carrier for transmitting AI deepfake robocalls.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FTC HBNR Rule (AI health apps)

United States · Effective July 29, 2024 · 16 C.F.R. Part 318; 89 Fed. Reg. 47028

Health apps and connected devices — including AI-powered mental health and fitness tools — must notify users, the FTC, and (in some cases) the media within 60 days of a breach of identifiable health information. The 2024 amendments confirm that AI-generated inferences about health are covered.

Full entry · Agency page
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
HHS § 1557 Rule (AI clinical tools)

United States · Effective July 5, 2024 · 45 C.F.R. § 92.210; 89 Fed. Reg. 37522

HHS's Section 1557 rule bans discrimination in 'patient care decision-support tools,' which includes AI and algorithmic clinical tools. Covered health programs and providers must identify when a tool relies on patient race, age, disability, or other protected traits and take steps to mitigate the risk of discrimination.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Lehrman v. Lovo

S.D.N.Y. · Effective May 16, 2024 · Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y.)

Voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage sued AI voice-cloning startup Lovo, alleging Lovo cloned their voices through deceptive Fiverr commissions and resold the clones without consent. The case is the highest-profile U.S. voice-cloning right-of-publicity action and was certified in part in 2025.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
FAA Reauthorization Act 2024 (drones)

United States · Effective May 16, 2024 · Pub. L. No. 118-63

The five-year FAA reauthorization sets the agenda for U.S. drone integration through 2028: it directs the FAA to finalize a Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight rule, expands counter-drone authority for federal and (in pilot programs) state and local agencies, advances Advanced Air Mobility (passenger drones / eVTOLs), and tightens rules on drones produced by countries of concern.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
HUD FHEO Tenant Screening AI

United States · Effective May 2, 2024 · HUD FHEO, Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing (May 2, 2024)

HUD guidance applying the Fair Housing Act to algorithmic tenant screening — landlords and screening vendors share liability for discriminatory outcomes.

Full entry · Agency page
81 more
SEC AI-washing settlement · United States · In effect
CMS MA Rule (AI prior auth) · United States · In effect
DOJ / Multistate v. Yardi · W.D. Wash. · Blocked / in litigation
CFPB Circ. 2023-03 (AI credit) · United States · In effect
CFPB § 1071 Rule (small-biz AI lending) · United States · In effect
Cigna PXDX AI Denial Class Action · E.D. Cal. · Blocked / in litigation
FTC v. Amazon (Alexa) · FTC · In effect
Mata v. Avianca (ChatGPT fake cites) · S.D.N.Y. · In effect
FTC v. Amazon (Ring) · FTC · In effect
NHTSA SGO 2021-01 (AV/ADAS reporting) · United States · In effect
NHTSA AV federal framework · United States · In effect
Robles v. Domino's · 9th Cir. · In effect
FDA 510(k) — surgical robots · United States · In effect
OSHA industrial robots · United States · In effect
xAI v. Harwood (Grok NCII Counter-Suit 2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Florida AG v. OpenAI (AI safety, minors) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
NAACP v. xAI (Colossus 2 Air Pollution) · N.D. Miss. · Blocked / in litigation
NAIC AI Evaluation Tool Pilot (12 states, 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
ACA § 1557 (AI in patient care) · United States · In effect
FBI 2024 Elder Fraud Report · United States · In effect
Federal AI Executive Orders · United States · In effect
FBI IC3 AI fraud PSA · United States · In effect
DHS AI Critical Infra Framework · United States · In effect
USDA AI Strategy · United States · In effect
Battle v. Microsoft · D. Md. · Repealed / replaced
SSA AI Disability Adjudication · United States · In effect
NIST GenAI Profile (AI 600-1) · United States · In effect
FINRA AI Notice 24-09 · United States · In effect
FSMB AI Guidance · United States · In effect
Treasury AI Cyber Report (Fin. Services) · United States · In effect
NTIA AI Accountability Report · United States · In effect
CFTC AI trading-scam advisory · United States · In effect
CISA AI Roadmap · United States · In effect
EEOC SEP FY24-28 (AI priority) · United States · In effect
DOJ Civil Rights AI Statement · United States · In effect
Young v. NeoCortext (Reface) · C.D. Cal. · Blocked / in litigation
NIST AI RMF (voluntary AI risk framework) · United States · In effect
OSTP AI Bill of Rights Blueprint · United States · In effect
FTC AI Guidance (2021) · United States · In effect
Interagency AI/ML Risk Mgmt (OCC/Fed/FDIC) · United States · In effect
FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform · United States · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757) · United States · Proposed / pending
FTC Proposed Policy Statement — AI Accuracy (July 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
Robinson v. Meta voiceprint CDAFA suit dismissed (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Sigwalt v. Amazon/Ring — Familiar Faces facial recognition suit · United States · Blocked / in litigation
S.Res. 896 religious freedom and AI transparency · United States · Enacted (not yet in effect)
FTC CARS Rule (AI auto) · United States · Proposed / pending
FTC Commercial Surveillance ANPR · United States · Proposed / pending
FCC AI robocall disclosure NPRM · United States · Proposed / pending
Sanders-Casar Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act (2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
US S. 5417 AI Emergency Button Act (human shutdown mechanisms) · United States · Proposed / pending
US H.R. 10567 AI Emergency Button Act (House companion) · United States · Proposed / pending
US H.R. 10146 AI Advertising Disclosure Act (sponsored content in AI tools) · United States · Proposed / pending
Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (data center ratepayer section) · United States · Proposed / pending
US S. 5471 AI Systems Transparency Act · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10719 Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 9340 Ratepayer Protection Act (House-passed 417-3; blocked in Senate) · United States · Proposed / pending
QUIET Act · United States · Proposed / pending
QUIET Act (Senate) · United States · Proposed / pending
Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act (House) · United States · Proposed / pending
Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act (Senate) · United States · Proposed / pending
NO FAKES Act of 2025 · United States · Proposed / pending
AI Scam Prevention Act · United States · Proposed / pending
AI Fraud Accountability Act · United States · Proposed / pending
AI Fraud Accountability Act (House) · United States · Proposed / pending
AI Fraud Deterrence Act · United States · Proposed / pending
Doe v. X.AI (Grok NCII deepfakes class action) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot) · S.D. Fla. · Blocked / in litigation
FTC v. Rytr · FTC · Repealed / replaced
Sky / Scarlett Johansson voice-likeness threat · (threatened — no filed case) · Status unknown
HUD FHEO Digital Advertising AI (withdrawn) · United States · Repealed / replaced
Krupke v. Walmart BIPA voiceprint class action (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Alvarez v. Meta NameTag smart glasses biometrics suit (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Gatlin v. St. Louis / AWS Rekognition false arrest suit (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Data center noise litigation wave and the dBA measurement gap (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Raeden v. Gibraltar MI data center moratorium challenge (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
SEC PDA Rule (proposed) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Accountability Act (2019, died) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Accountability Act (2022, died) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Accountability Act (2023, died) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Justice Act (Markey/Matsui, died) · United States · Expired

State consumer protection rules (274)

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)
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
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1405, Ch. 178, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 9, 2026)

California Assembly Bill 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors and sets standards for their independence, transparency and integrity. Governor Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, the same day he signed Senate Bill 813, which sets up a framework for independent organizations to assess AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Government Operations Agency must have the registry running by January 1, 2029, after which AI auditors must be registered. Registered auditors must be independent of the companies they audit, may not audit their own work or seek jobs with the company during an audit, and may not block or punish employee whistleblowers. An auditor who breaks the rules can be removed from the registry and referred to the Attorney General. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan authored the bill.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Connecticut SB 4 surveillance pricing ban (2026)

Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Pub. Act 26-64, § 11 (Substitute S.B. 4, 2026) — approved May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Senate Bill 4 on May 27, 2026 (Public Act 26-64), and its surveillance-pricing rules take effect October 1, 2026. The law bars retail sellers and third-party delivery services from 'surveillance pricing' — setting a customized price for a particular shopper based on personal data gathered through tracking technology such as cameras, sensors, biometric monitoring or device tracking. Ordinary discounts, loyalty programs, cost-based differences and supply-and-demand price changes are still allowed. Separately, any business that uses a 'price setting device' to raise online prices must tell shoppers: 'THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Only the Attorney General can enforce it, under the state's unfair trade practices law; shoppers cannot sue. The ban arrived as part of a broader overhaul of the state's privacy law rather than as a standalone measure. It is broader in reach than Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act signed weeks earlier: Maryland's applies to food retailers above 15,000 square feet and third-party delivery services, whereas Connecticut's covers retail sellers generally alongside delivery services.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Massachusetts EO 658 responsible data center development (2026)

Massachusetts · Effective September 8, 2026 · Mass. Exec. Order No. 658 (Sept. 8, 2026)

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed Executive Order No. 658 on September 8, 2026, titled Establishing Requirements for Responsible Data Center Development and Operations in Massachusetts to Protect and Support Ratepayers, Communities, and the Environment. It is the most comprehensive single data center instrument in this dataset, because it combines four mechanisms that other states adopted separately. First, any data center with peak demand above 25 megawatts must meet 100% of its electricity demand with clean energy. Second, developers must obtain local approval before they can seek state construction permits — the same inversion Pennsylvania adopted three weeks earlier, and for the same reason: it stops a developer arriving at a town already holding state authorisations. Third, applicants must demonstrate conformance with state standards on air quality and public health, water use and community engagement, and must submit a community benefits agreement with key stakeholders. Fourth, and the part that gives the clean energy requirement teeth, a developer who does not procure enough incremental clean electricity to cover annual consumption must make an alternative compliance payment, and those funds are credited to a Ratepayer Protection Fund that offsets electricity supply costs for all ratepayers. Compliance with the clean energy requirement can be met by generating onsite, funding construction of nearby new generation, or paying into that fund. The Department of Environmental Protection must stand up the payment mechanism by the end of 2026.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
New Jersey S3379/A4096 data center transparency (2026)

New Jersey · Effective August 27, 2026 · P.L.2026, c.75 (N.J. S. 3379 / A. 4096, 2026)

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed S3379/A4096 on August 27, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.75), requiring data centers in the state to report their energy and water use to the Board of Public Utilities twice a year. Reports cover total energy use (including for cooling), IT-equipment energy use, the serving utility and service agreements, on-site and backup power supplies and their permits, total and peak daily water use, and water sources. The Board must publish the reports online within 30 days. Data centers that receive state financial incentives must also report efficiency and sustainability metrics, which the Board keeps confidential except in anonymized, aggregated form. Reporting runs for three years from each data center's first report, after which the Board decides whether to make it permanent. The law took effect immediately. The Governor presented the signing as delivering all four pillars of her May 2026 data center plan: data centers paying their fair share for energy and the grid (July 2026 laws requiring them to bring their own clean energy and creating a separate rate class), transparency about energy and water use (this law), meaningful community investments, and good union jobs during construction. The same day she announced Department of Community Affairs guidance (sent to towns August 25) to help municipalities negotiate community benefits agreements with developers, backed by technical assistance teams at the Economic Development Authority, the Board of Public Utilities and the Department of Environmental Protection.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Delaware HB 233 large-load rate class (2026)

Delaware · Effective August 26, 2026 · Del. H.S. 1 for H.B. 233, 153rd Gen. Assemb., 85 Del. Laws c. 440 (2026)

Delaware House Bill 233 creates a separate utility rate class for large energy-use facilities such as data centers, and requires them to pay the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades they make necessary rather than spreading those costs across residential and small-business customers. This is the core cost-allocation move: once a hyperscale customer sits in its own rate class, the arithmetic that would otherwise socialise its grid costs no longer applies to it. Governor Matt Meyer signed it on August 26, 2026 as part of a four-bill Energy Consumer Protection package, alongside HB 445's clean-generation requirement, HB 310's removal of tax credits for these facilities, and SB 326's limits on what Delmarva Power can recover from ratepayers. All four took effect immediately. Delaware's approach is notable for treating the problem as four separate levers pulled at once — cost class, power supply, tax treatment and utility capital recovery — rather than a single omnibus statute.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Delaware HB 445 bring-your-own-generation mandate (2026)

Delaware · Effective August 26, 2026 · Del. H.B. 445, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)

Delaware House Bill 445 requires large energy-use facilities to produce or secure 100 percent of the power they need, including a share of clean or renewable energy, so they do not strain the public grid. The Sierra Club called it a first-of-its-kind clean energy mandate for hyperscale data centers, and the distinguishing feature is that it does not merely charge large users more for grid power — it requires them to bring their own. That changes the question from who pays for new generation to who builds it. A facility cannot satisfy the requirement by accepting a higher tariff; it has to arrange supply. Combined with HB 233, which puts large users in their own rate class and makes them pay the full cost of infrastructure upgrades, Delaware has closed both the cost-shifting route and the capacity-strain route in the same package. Governor Matt Meyer signed it on August 26, 2026 with three companion bills, all effective immediately.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
Pennsylvania EO 2026-05 data center restrictions (2026)

Pennsylvania · Effective August 18, 2026 · Pa. Exec. Order 2026-05 (Aug. 18, 2026)

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed Executive Order 2026-05 on August 18, 2026, sharply restricting data center development in the state. The order conditions state environmental permitting on two things a developer previously did not need. First, the Department of Environmental Protection may only review a permit application if the developer has made a legally binding commitment to meet the Governor's Responsible Infrastructure Development requirements — the GRID Requirements — which impose limits on electricity and water usage. Second, and more unusual, the developer must already have local approval before the state will look at the application. That inverts the normal sequence, in which a developer can arrive at a township holding state permits and considerable momentum; here the community goes first. The order also removes all AI data center proposals from Pennsylvania's Fast Track permitting process, and prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements for data center projects — directly addressing the pattern where municipalities negotiate with developers under NDAs and residents learn the details only after decisions are made. The reversal is striking. Shapiro had been an early champion of data center development, including a $20 billion Amazon commitment to build at least two facilities in Bucks and Luzerne Counties. He said he had 'no other choice than but to take this executive action to protect the good people of Pennsylvania from these predatory developers.'

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Nebraska LB 1261 behind-the-meter generation (2026)

Nebraska · Effective July 17, 2026 · Neb. L.B. 1261 (2026)

Nebraska Legislative Bill 1261 requires large energy users to generate their own electricity behind the meter, so that increased power demand is not paid for by Nebraska ratepayers. Governor Jim Pillen signed it in June 2026 and his office described it as landmark behind-the-meter legislation aimed at preserving the state's existing energy production. Nebraska is unusual in that its electricity is entirely publicly owned — it is the only all-public-power state in the country — which makes the cost-shifting question sharper than elsewhere: there are no shareholders to absorb a mismatch, so any unfunded load lands directly on other public power customers. LB 1261 sits alongside Governor Pillen's July 20, 2026 executive order suspending state tax incentives for large-scale data centers and creating a resource-protection task force, and the two together are Nebraska's answer to hyperscale demand: bring your own generation, and do not expect a subsidy.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
North Carolina AG LivCor algorithmic rent settlement (2026)

North Carolina · Effective June 26, 2026 · NC v. LivCor LLC, consent decree entered June 26, 2026, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); $7M multistate settlement (NC, MN, CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, OR, TN)

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined eight other state attorneys general in reaching a $7 million settlement with LivCor LLC, a Blackstone-owned company that managed approximately 3,500 apartments in North Carolina. The consent decree, entered June 26, 2026 in the Middle District of North Carolina, permanently bans LivCor from using algorithmic pricing software to coordinate rents with competing landlords. The settlement arose from the same litigation targeting RealPage Inc.'s revenue management platform — algorithmic software that critics and now courts have found enables competing property managers to share nonpublic pricing data and move rents in lockstep, keeping apartment rents artificially elevated. The $7 million was distributed among the nine participating state AGs. For North Carolina, the practical scope is the 3,500 apartments LivCor managed within the state. This is an enforcement action rather than legislation — it results from DOJ and multistate AG litigation — but the prohibition is legally binding on LivCor and its successors, and North Carolina's AG participation made it effective for NC residents. The underlying federal case, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710, continues separately. AG Jackson also issued guidance warning other property management companies in North Carolina that algorithmic rent coordination practices face the same legal exposure.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CA CPPA ADMT Regs

CA · Effective January 1, 2026 · 11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232

California's privacy agency finalized binding regulations governing automated decision-making and AI used to make significant decisions about Californians — including hiring, housing, education, healthcare, financial services, and ads to minors. Consumers gain rights to pre-use notice, opt-out, and access to information about how AI made the decision.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations

California · Effective January 1, 2026 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, div. 6

California's main privacy law gives consumers rights to know, delete, correct, and opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. New regulations finalized in 2025 add rights around automated decision-making technology (ADMT): businesses using ADMT for significant decisions (jobs, housing, credit, healthcare) must give pre-use notice, let people opt out, and provide access to how decisions were made.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
HB 3773 (AI Employment Discrimination)

Illinois · Effective January 1, 2026 · P.A. 103-0804, amending 775 ILCS 5; P.A. 104-0425 (SB 2487, 2026 civil penalty amendment)

Illinois employers may not use AI in ways that discriminate against protected classes in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, or other employment terms, and may not use zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics. Employers must notify workers and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Ohio PUCO data center energy service tariff, 85% minimum take (2025)

Ohio · Effective July 23, 2025 · Ohio — PUCO-approved AEP Ohio data center energy service tariff (July 2025), O.R.C. § 4909.18; 85% minimum subscribed-usage payment, 25 MW threshold, up to 12 years

In July 2025 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approved what a legal survey describes as 'a landmark tariff structure' for data center electricity service. Its core requirement is a MINIMUM TAKE: new data center customers must PAY FOR AT LEAST 85% OF THEIR SUBSCRIBED ELECTRICITY USAGE, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTION, for UP TO 12 YEARS. Understanding why that is a consumer protection requires seeing the problem it solves. When a data center asks a utility for hundreds of megawatts, the utility must plan, and often build, generation and transmission to serve it. Those costs are recovered from the whole ratepayer base over decades. If the data center then uses far less than it subscribed for — because the project shrank, the AI buildout slowed, or it was only ever speculative interest at several sites at once — the infrastructure still exists and everyone else pays for it. A minimum-take provision moves that risk onto the party that caused it. Subscribe for 500 megawatts and you pay for at least 425, whether you use it or not. It also does something subtler and arguably more valuable: it disciplines the forecast. A developer shopping the same nominal load around five utilities has every reason to overstate demand when subscription is free and no reason to do so when 85% of it is a binding financial commitment. Much of the grid-planning anxiety recorded throughout this dataset — PJM's 2030 reliability warnings, the substation-capacity constraints Eureka's planners described, the ratepayer bills in Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Jersey and Arizona — rests on load forecasts that may be inflated by exactly this dynamic. Ohio's tariff is the mechanism most directly aimed at it, and it operates through utility regulation rather than zoning, which means it reaches every data center in the service territory without any municipality having to act.

Full entry · Legal analysis
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.

Full entry · Statute
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)
NJ Fair Price Protection Act, P.L.2026, c.55 (2026)

NJ · Effective August 1, 2027 · P.L.2026, c.55 (N.J. A4085/A4523 ACS, substituted for S3612/S3717 SCS; 222nd Legislature) — approved July 23, 2026; main provisions effective August 1, 2027; ESL moratorium effective February 1, 2027

Governor Mikie Sherrill signed New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act (A4085/S3612, P.L.2026, c.55) on July 23, 2026, making New Jersey the third state to curb surveillance-based pricing, following Maryland and Connecticut. The law makes it an unlawful consumer-fraud practice to set or vary the price of groceries and other household necessities based on a shopper's personal data. Loyalty programs, publicly posted group discounts and real cost differences are still allowed. It also places a one-year moratorium on new electronic shelf labels while the state studies them; stores can keep and repair labels they already have. The main pricing ban takes effect August 1, 2027, and the shelf-label moratorium starts February 1, 2027. The Attorney General can sue to stop violations and recover damages.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act

New Jersey · Effective July 1, 2027 · FAIR Act, N.J. P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497/S451), C.56:9-20 to 56:9-26 — approved July 20, 2026; effective July 1, 2027

New Jersey Governor Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act on July 20, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.43). Starting July 1, 2027, it is a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act for landlords to pay for or use the services of an algorithmic rent 'coordinator' — software that sets or recommends rents, lease terms or occupancy levels using competitors' nonpublic data or the same pricing algorithm across multiple landlords — and for anyone to perform that coordinating function. RealPage-style revenue-management tools are the target. Municipal ordinances that conflict with the act are preempted.

Full entry · Statute
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 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
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 2383 data center electric tariffs (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. AB 2383 (2026), Ch. 435, Stats. 2026

AB 2383 requires the California Public Utilities Commission to make each investor-owned electric utility file separate transmission/distribution and generation tariffs for data centers, so that data centers pay a reasonable share of costs such as wildfire mitigation and liability, electrification and environmental programs. Community choice aggregators and electric service providers must adopt data center generation tariffs by January 1, 2028. Generation tariffs must use a payment mechanism of at least 10 years, with early termination and non-completion fees, so other ratepayers are held harmless; data centers can reduce these obligations by installing zero-emissions resources behind the meter. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026 as part of a seven-bill data center package that a law-firm alert says primarily takes effect January 1, 2027.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 886 Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. SB 886 (2026), Ch. 438, Stats. 2026 (Pub. Util. Code § 945 et seq.)

SB 886, the California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act, requires the California Public Utilities Commission by January 1, 2028 to set new tariffs or rules for connecting large data center customers to the grid and serving them, and to make sure those tariffs do not shift costs or leave stranded costs on other customers. Data centers seeking transmission-level service bear the cost of the transmission upgrades they need, and one that leaves within 10 years of interconnection or fails to ramp up its load must pay an early termination fee. Data centers may join a new demand response program that costs other customers nothing, and utilities may seek approval of individual contracts in the meantime. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026.

Full entry · Bill text
244 more
California SB 1111 (AI digital replicas covered by likeness law and impersonation crimes) · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Texas PUCT large load interconnection rule (2026) · Texas · In effect
Michigan PSC DTE–Google data center contracts · Michigan · In effect
Maryland SB 8 (AI/deepfake impersonation) · Maryland · In effect
Texas AG data center water-reporting investigation (2026) · Texas · In effect
Maryland EO 01.01.2026.16 data center framework (2026) · Maryland · In effect
Nevada EO 2026-005 — responsible data center standard · Nevada · In effect
Oregon state-land data center transaction pause (2026) · Oregon · In effect
Missouri AI Therapy Chatbot Ban (SB 1019) · Missouri · In effect
Delaware SB 326 utility capital expenditure oversight (2026) · Delaware · In effect
Kentucky Beshear data center executive order (2026) · Kentucky · In effect
Oklahoma HB 2992 data center ratepayer protection (2026) · Oklahoma · In effect
Ohio PUCO data center default service notice order (2026) · Ohio · In effect
MN HF 1606 AI Nudification Ban (2026) · Minnesota · In effect
Arizona ACC cooperative large-load process (2026) · Arizona · In effect
Virginia SCC data center transmission cost order (2026) · Virginia · In effect
AZ HB 2175 (AI Insurance Denial — Physician Review) · Arizona · In effect
Ostergaard v. Microsoft — data center noise class action (2026) · Wisconsin · Blocked / in litigation
Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026) · Virginia · In effect
Illinois data center tax-incentive pause (DCEO, July 2026) · Illinois · In effect
Indiana data center local revenue share, IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 (2026) · Indiana · In effect
RI Therapy Chatbot Ban (2026) · Rhode Island · In effect
TX TDI Bulletin B-0003-26 (AI in insurance) · Texas · In effect
Ohio — DeWine pause of the data center sales tax exemption program (2026) · Ohio · In effect
PA v. Character.AI (Fake Psychiatrist Chatbot) · Pennsylvania · Blocked / in litigation
SC H 3431 Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (2026) · SC · In effect
California AB 489 (AI healthcare chatbot misrepresentation ban) · California · In effect
X.AI v. Bonta (AB 2013 training-data disclosure) · California · Blocked / in litigation
New York S7882 (felony to use algorithms to coordinate residential rents) · New York · In effect
Raine v. OpenAI · CA · Blocked / in litigation
IL WOPR (AI therapy ban) · IL · In effect
CPPA Honda ADMT settlement · CA · In effect
IL Digital Voice/Likeness Act · IL · In effect
CA AB 1008 (CCPA + AI) · CA · In effect
OR PUC Data Center Rate Class · OR · In effect
VA SCC Data Center Rate Case · VA · In effect
NY AI digital replica law · NY · In effect
NYDFS CL 7 (2024) — Insurance AI Anti-Discrimination · New York · In effect
ELVIS Act · Tennessee · In effect
NY S5959-D (2020, digital replicas + deepfake porn) · NY · In effect
MI UIA MIDAS Reform Rules · MI · In effect
VA PDD Act (2017 — first) · Virginia · In effect
UT drone-wildfire law · Utah · In effect
TX HB 912 (2013 drone privacy) · Texas · In effect
OR weaponized-drone ban · Oregon · In effect
FL drone surveillance act · Florida · In effect
Vermont Data Broker Law (H.211) · Vermont · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Hawaii AI Companion Safety Act (Act 248) · Hawaii · Enacted (not yet in effect)
KY AG v. Character.AI chatbot suit (2026) · Kentucky · Blocked / in litigation
Idaho Conversational AI Safety Act (chatbot disclosure + crisis protocol) · Idaho · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Iowa SF 2417 (Conversational AI Safety Act) · Iowa · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Nebraska LB 525 (AI chatbot disclosure & crisis protocol) · Nebraska · Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 540 (GA Chatbot Safety) · Georgia · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Utah SB 298 (bars AI/algorithmic transaction denials by protected traits) · Utah · Enacted (not yet in effect)
HB 1170 (WA AI Content Disclosure) · Washington · Enacted (not yet in effect)
CA SB 1168 — data center grid cost allocation · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026) · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Wisconsin 452.136(1m) (real estate ads must disclose AI-altered property images) · Wisconsin · Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 26-189 (Colorado ADMT Law) · Colorado · Enacted (not yet in effect)
RAISE Act · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
HB 2225 (WA Chatbot Safety) · Washington · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Maryland Predatory Pricing Act (surveillance pricing) · Maryland · In effect
CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act) · Connecticut · In effect
West Virginia 20-year data center development plan (2026) · West Virginia · In effect
SB 942 (AI Transparency Act) · California · In effect
Maine AI-in-Therapy Law (licensed pros only) · Maine · In effect
S731/A796 — Data center ratepayer protection and grid-demand · New Jersey · In effect
TN HB 1847 data center ratepayer protection (2026) · TN · In effect
VA Data Center Cost-Allocation Law · Virginia · In effect
Mississippi HB 1723 (defines AI) · Mississippi · In effect
Tennessee SB 1580 (AI can't claim to be a mental health professional) · Tennessee · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 1-1-143 (AI developers shielded from civil liability for others' misuse) · Wyoming · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 6-1-206 (using AI to commit a crime is no defense) · Wyoming · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-701 (felony to build/distribute AI systems meant to promote self-harm) · Wyoming · In effect
SB 484 (FL Data Center Costs) · Florida · In effect
SSB 5886 (WA Digital Likeness Rights) · Washington · In effect
PA AG — GEICO AI Underwriting Settlement · Pennsylvania · In effect
Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for D · Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric) · In effect
Utah SB 256 (AI is no defense to defamation; notice-and-removal) · Utah · In effect
Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-20 · Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · In effect
CO AG Weiser · CO · In effect
We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Ord · Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies) · In effect
Delaware AI Medical-Titles Ban (no AI 'doctors') · Delaware · In effect
Tennessee SB 837 (AI is not a 'person' under TN law) · Tennessee · In effect
VT AG Clark · VT · In effect
Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance an · MN · In effect
Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act · Kentucky · In effect
RI Privacy Law (RIDTPPA) · Rhode Island · In effect
Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act · Indiana · In effect
New Hampshire HB 143 (AI chatbot child-safety) · New Hampshire · In effect
California AB 316 (defendants can't blame the AI for acting on its own) · California · In effect
California SB 243 (companion chatbots: AI disclosure + suicide-safety protocol) · California · In effect
California AB 723 (real estate ads must disclose AI-altered images) · California · In effect
California AB 325 (bans anticompetitive use of shared pricing algorithms) · California · In effect
AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency) · California · In effect
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety) · California · In effect
TRAIGA · Texas · In effect
HI DOI AI Bulletin · HI · In effect
New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Bienn · Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia) · In effect
New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (personalized prices need a label) · New York · In effect
AI Companion Safeguards Law · New York · In effect
Montana MCDPA · Montana · In effect
Maryland Online Data Privacy Act · Maryland · In effect
Maine AI Chatbot Disclosure Law · Maine · In effect
PA Digital Forgery Law · Pennsylvania · In effect
TX HB 581 — AI Sexual Material Age Verification · Texas · In effect
TX SB 2373 (AI Media / Phishing Financial Abuse) · Texas · In effect
Texas SB 441 (deepfake NCII crime + website/AI-app/payment-processor liability) · Texas · In effect
Michigan Intimate Deep Fakes Act · Michigan · In effect
Arkansas Frank Broyles Act AI amendment — voice and likeness protection (2025) · Arkansas · In effect
AR Generative AI Ownership Act (Act 927) · Arkansas · In effect
ND 12.1-17-07 (using a robot/AI to harass is a crime) · North Dakota · In effect
ND 12.1-17-07.1 (stalking via robot/AI, e.g. tracking, is a crime) · North Dakota · In effect
Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act · Minnesota · In effect
MA AG · MA · In effect
AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA) · Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (AEP Ohio) · In effect
Nevada AB 406 (AI can't pose as a therapist) · Nevada · In effect
Texas SB 6 (Data Center Grid Law) · Texas · In effect
Oregon POWER Act · Oregon · In effect
Walters v. OpenAI · GA · In effect
Utah S.B. 226 (must disclose you're talking to AI on request; AI use no excuse) · Utah · In effect
HB 452 (Mental Health Chatbots) · Utah · In effect
DC AG Schwalb senior AI-fraud unit · DC · In effect
Arkansas Deepfake Sexual Content Act · Arkansas · In effect
NJ Deceptive AI Deepfakes Act · New Jersey · In effect
WI DOI AI Bulletin · WI · In effect
Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reac · Utah Public Service Commission (Rocky Mountain Power / PacifiCorp) · In effect
I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (C · Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power) · In effect
NJ DOI AI Bulletin · NJ · In effect
DE DOI AI Bulletin · DE · In effect
CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide · California State University (CSU System) · In effect
Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Cust · Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power) · In effect
New Jersey Data Protection Act · New Jersey · In effect
CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory · CA · In effect
NJ AG Platkin / DCR · NJ · In effect
IL Bar AI Standing Committee · IL · In effect
Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act · Iowa · In effect
Nebraska NDPA · Nebraska · In effect
NH Consumer Privacy Act · New Hampshire · In effect
Delaware Privacy Law (DPDPA) · Delaware · In effect
California AB 2885 (one statewide statutory definition of 'AI') · California · In effect
California AB 2905 (robocalls must disclose an AI-generated voice) · California · In effect
OR AG Rosenblum · OR · In effect
NC DOI AI Bulletin · NC · In effect
MA DOI AI Bulletin · MA · In effect
OK DOI AI Bulletin · OK · In effect
IA DOI AI Bulletin · IA · In effect
Cruise SF Pedestrian Incident · CA · In effect
NY AG James AI scam consumer alert · NY · In effect
Texas v. Pieces Technologies · TX · In effect
MI AG AI scam alert · MI · In effect
WV DOI AI Bulletin · WV · In effect
MI DOI AI Bulletin · MI · In effect
AR DOI AI Bulletin · AR · In effect
VA DOI AI Bulletin · VA · In effect
Florida Digital Bill of Rights (privacy / profiling opt-out) · Florida · In effect
TDPSA · Texas · In effect
NE DOI AI Bulletin · NE · In effect
AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies · Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) · In effect
DC DOI AI Bulletin · DC · In effect
AZ Digital Impersonation Law · Arizona · In effect
South Carolina 40-57-820 (realtors accountable for AI-assisted work) · South Carolina · In effect
Utah AI Policy Act · Utah · In effect
DC Bar Op. 388 (GenAI) · DC · In effect
MD DOI AI Bulletin · MD · In effect
WA DOI AI Bulletin · WA · In effect
MA AG Campbell · MA · In effect
KY DOI AI Bulletin · KY · In effect
Huang v. Tesla · CA · In effect
NY Bar AI Report · NY · In effect
PA DOI AI Bulletin · PA · In effect
My Health My Data Act · Washington · In effect
RI DOI AI Bulletin · RI · In effect
IL DOI AI Bulletin · IL · In effect
VT DOI AI Bulletin · VT · In effect
CT DOI AI Bulletin · CT · In effect
NV DOI AI Bulletin · NV · In effect
NH DOI AI Bulletin · NH · In effect
AK DOI AI Bulletin · AK · In effect
CA AG Bonta · CA · In effect
NJ Supreme Court GenAI Notice · NJ · In effect
FL Bar Op. 24-1 (GenAI) · FL · In effect
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo · California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · In effect
CA Bar GenAI Guidance · CA · In effect
Virginia VCDPA (opt out of profiling, $7,500/violation) · Virginia · In effect
PA Act 130 of 2022 (HAVs) · Pennsylvania · In effect
OH HB 7 (2022 AV) · Ohio · In effect
Idaho AI Personhood Prohibition · Idaho · In effect
CO Insurance Algorithmic Discrimination Law · Colorado · In effect
PA PDD law (Act 130/2020) · Pennsylvania · In effect
NJ Bot Disclosure Act (bots must identify themselves) · New Jersey · In effect
AR Act 1096 (2019 AV) · Arkansas · In effect
California Bot Disclosure Act (bots must self-identify in sales/election messaging) · California · In effect
UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute) · Utah · In effect
OH PDD law (SB 156) · Ohio · In effect
AZ PDD law (HB 2422) · Arizona · In effect
NE LB 989 (2018 AV) · Nebraska · In effect
AZ EO 2018-04 (AV oversight) · Arizona · In effect
CT Rideshare Dynamic-Pricing Law (surge-price limits) · Connecticut · In effect
NC HB 469 (2017 AV statute) · North Carolina · In effect
FL PDD law (2017) · Florida · In effect
TX SB 2205 (2017 AV statute) · Texas · In effect
IL AV local-preemption (2017) · Illinois · In effect
GA SB 219 (2017 AV statute) · Georgia · In effect
TN SB 151 (2017 AV Act) · Tennessee · In effect
WI PDD Act 13 (2017) · Wisconsin · In effect
ID PDD law (HB 191) · Idaho · In effect
CO SB 17-213 (AV statute) · Colorado · In effect
NY AV testing pilot · New York · In effect
MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package) · Michigan · In effect
FL HB 7027 (2016 driverless AV) · Florida · In effect
CA AB 856 (2015 drone trespass) · California · In effect
CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization) · California · In effect
NV AB 511 (2011 — first AV statute) · Nevada · In effect
Guam Breach Notification (9 GCA Ch. 48) · Guam · In effect
Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricit · Virginia · Enacted (not yet in effect)
House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
Arizona HB 2133 deepfake sexual content — vetoed 2026 · Arizona · Vetoed
RealPage v. James — NY algorithmic rent ban enjoined (2026) · New York · Blocked / in litigation
NY PSC utility AI inquiry (Case 26-M-0552) · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Colorado AI Act (repealed) · Colorado · Repealed / replaced
LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Dat · Kentucky Public Service Commission (LG&E and KU) · Proposed / pending
Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Car · Public Service Commission of South Carolina · Proposed / pending
New York Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act (2026) · New York · Proposed / pending
New Jersey Quijano AI data center delay and study commission bill (2026) · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
Ohio bill to prohibit data center property tax exemptions (2026) · Ohio · Proposed / pending
NC AG framework for a Duke data center rate class (2026) · North Carolina · Proposed / pending
NJ S4754 AI unauthorized practice of professions · New Jersey · 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
NJ A5496 AI mortgage tool bias audits · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
NY AI Professional Impersonation Liability Bill · New York · Proposed / pending
xAI v. Ellison (MN nudification ban challenge) · Minnesota · Blocked / in litigation
CCPA Original (AB 375, 2018) · CA · Repealed / replaced
Algorithmic rent price-fixing ban · Illinois · Expired
NJ developer litigation against municipal data center bans (2026) · New Jersey · Blocked / in litigation
Vermont — Gov. Scott veto of large data center regulatory framework (2026) · Vermont · Vetoed
CA SB 1047 (vetoed) · CA · Vetoed
VA HB 2094 (vetoed) · VA · Vetoed
CA AB 2930 (died) · CA · Expired
CT SB 2 (died) · CT · Expired
NY S7623B (died) · NY · Expired
OK HB 3577 (died) · OK · Expired

County consumer protection rules (43)

In effect
Lawrence County IL two-year data center moratorium (2026)

Lawrence County, IL · Effective September 17, 2026 · Lawrence County, Ill. — unanimous two-year moratorium on data centers exceeding 10,000 square feet (2026)

The Lawrence County Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve a TWO-YEAR moratorium on data centers, pausing new development across the county. The temporary ban applies to any data center facility EXCEEDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET. Board members said the pause will give local officials and residents time to study the potential impacts, infrastructure demands and community effects before allowing projects to move forward. Board Chairman Jim Brewer put the reasoning in unusually candid terms: 'We did the moratorium so we as a board and the citizens could be better educated on problems or possibly benefits of data centers.' And then: 'We don't know that, but I would rather put a moratorium on something that is unknown than let it go through.' That is a precautionary rationale stated without varnish — not a claim that data centers are harmful, but a claim that the county does not yet know, and that not knowing is itself a reason to wait. Two years is at the long end of what this dataset records. Most county pauses run six to eighteen months, and the longer the term, the more a moratorium depends on the county showing it is actively drafting regulations rather than simply refusing to decide. Nothing in the reporting indicates a challenge, and Illinois does not impose the express statutory ceiling that Minnesota and Wisconsin do.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Los Angeles County prohibition on data centers in unincorporated areas (2026)

Los Angeles County, CA · Effective September 17, 2026 · Los Angeles County, Cal. — Department of Regional Planning memorandum prohibiting large-scale AI data center development in unincorporated areas, September 17, 2026, pending zoning code amendment

Los Angeles County's planning director ordered an IMMEDIATE PROHIBITION on the development of large-scale data centers that power artificial intelligence across the county's UNINCORPORATED AREAS. Department of Regional Planning Director AMY BODEK issued the directive in a memorandum on Thursday, September 17, 2026, saying it is intended to serve as INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING STAFF while the county moves toward codifying the prohibition in its zoning code. This is the largest jurisdiction to act in this dataset. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States, and its unincorporated areas alone hold more people than many states. The path here is worth following because it is not a moratorium. Board Chair and First District Supervisor HILDA SOLIS introduced a motion in April 2026 addressing public health and environmental concerns about data centers, and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY. The county's report back on that motion identified ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THESE FACILITIES — not pause them. The planning director's memorandum holds the line in the meantime; Solis says she intends to bring further actions before the Board to implement the Regional Planning and Public Health departments' recommendations and amend the zoning code. Solis gave two reasons. The first is local and specific: 'I introduced it in response to concerns raised by San Gabriel Valley residents who were understandably concerned about the effects of data centers in their communities, concerns that have since been reflected nationwide.' The second is not local at all: 'The need for such a ban has only been further underscored by alarming developments from the AI sector on CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS THE TECHNOLOGY MAY HAVE ON HUMANITY.' That is the second American local government in this dataset, after Gary, Indiana, to put AI existential risk on the record as a reason for a land-use restriction — and unlike Gary it is paired with an ordinary public-health and environmental record.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Sauk County WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Sauk County, WI · Effective September 15, 2026 · Sauk County, Wis. — 18-month moratorium on data center applications and zoning approvals, adopted 27-1 on September 15, 2026

The Sauk County Board voted 27-1 on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to stop accepting data center applications and granting data center zoning approvals for 18 months in the parts of the county under county zoning. County leaders say they are not aware of any data center project currently planned in Sauk County. That is the point. Supervisor William Kinsman told the board the county has no specific mechanism in its zoning ordinance to address a data center proposal at all, and officials said the goal is to get regulations in place BEFORE a developer comes forward. This is pre-emptive rather than reactive, which matters legally: a moratorium enacted while an application is pending invites vested-rights litigation, and this dataset already records several moratoriums defeated exactly that way. Sauk County faces no such exposure. One caution belongs on the face of this entry: 18 months is a long moratorium under Wisconsin practice, where the usual understanding is an initial term of up to 12 months with one 6-month extension. An 18-month term adopted in a single enactment is at the outer edge of that framework, and its defensibility, if challenged, would turn on the county's record of actively drafting regulations.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Latah County ID data center regulations (2026)

Latah County, ID · Effective September 15, 2026 · Latah County, Idaho — data center ordinance adopted September 15, 2026 (conditional use in industrial zone; groundwater cooling prohibition; noise and electrical limits; annual electrical reporting)

Latah County's Commissioners approved new data center rules on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 — and the notable thing is that they adopted SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS instead of a pause, at a moment when almost every other county in this dataset was buying time. The ordinance applies to data centers proposed on Latah County land, NOT inside incorporated cities, and it makes data centers a CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE in the industrial zoning designation. The strongest provision is about water. 'Consumptive use of groundwater for routine cooling operations is prohibited,' the ordinance states, and 'Groundwater shall not be used as the primary source of cooling water.' Groundwater may still be used for non-consumptive or sanitary purposes. A company proposing a data center must also produce a WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN detailing how it will minimise impacts on the local water supply. The county is following recently passed Idaho legislation limiting how much groundwater may be used for data centers. The ordinance also caps NOISE and ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, and — unusually — imposes an ongoing reporting duty: 'An annual report shall be submitted that details electrical consumption, maximum peak demand, and any significant modifications to the electrical system.' That is a continuing obligation, not a one-time permit condition, and very few local measures in this dataset have one. There is no data center proposed in Latah County. At a September 9 public hearing, community members asked for a moratorium or an outright ban. Commissioner Tony Johnson said that since nothing is proposed, a moratorium does not make sense, and that the regulations are the county's way of preparing for what could happen. Planning director Michelle Fuson said it is unlikely a data center will be built on county land, but the county can always modify its rules if it needs to.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Woodford County KY permanent data center ban (2026)

Woodford County, KY · Effective September 8, 2026 · Woodford County, Ky. — ordinance permanently banning data centers, landfills and large battery storage (adopted September 8, 2026)

On September 8, 2026 the Woodford County Fiscal Court voted unanimously to permanently ban the construction of data centers in the county — the first Kentucky county to do so. This is not a moratorium. Where almost every other local measure in this dataset pauses development for six months, a year, or three years while the jurisdiction writes rules, Woodford County simply prohibited the use. The ordinance also bans landfills and large battery storage systems, which are frequently paired with hyperscale data centers to smooth their electricity demand — so the ban reaches the supporting infrastructure as well as the facility itself. The county framed the decision around farmland rather than electricity or water bills. Judge-Executive James Kay put it as 'Woodford County's future is rooted in our land and water. Our future is farming,' and the county described the ordinance as protecting farmland, honoring farming families and safeguarding the quiet character of the countryside. Woodford County sits in the Bluegrass region, where the land at stake is horse and crop farmland. Kentucky already has a separate two-year moratorium in Bell County and a governor's executive order on data center development; this is the first permanent prohibition.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Rowan County KY two-year data center moratorium (2026)

Rowan County, KY · Effective September 1, 2026 · Rowan County, Ky. — two-year moratorium on large-scale data centers (2026)

The Rowan County Fiscal Court approved a TWO-YEAR moratorium on large-scale data centers, giving county leaders time to consider how future projects would be reviewed before any arrives. County officials were explicit that nothing is pending. Judge-Executive Harry Clark: 'First and foremost, we have not been approached by anyone for a data center.' Jason Slone, president and CEO of the Morehead-Rowan County Chamber of Commerce, put the reasoning plainly — 'But it is going to be a matter of time at some point.' Two years is long for a local pause, and it sits well beyond the twelve-to-eighteen-month windows that municipal officials elsewhere in this dataset have described as the outer limit of what a moratorium can defend. Kentucky county fiscal courts, however, operate differently from municipal zoning boards, and the state's other long pause — Bell County's two years — was adopted without apparent challenge. Rowan County joins an unusually active Kentucky cohort: Woodford County adopted the state's first permanent ban in September 2026, Bell County a two-year moratorium, Logan County a twelve-month water-focused pause, Mercer County a one-year pause, Nicholasville six months, and Lexington-Fayette Urban County its own moratorium, alongside a governor's executive order on data center development.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Nye County NV data center ban in Basin 162 (2026)

Nye County, NV · Effective August 18, 2026 · Nye County, Nev. Bill No. 2026-11, amending Nye County Code Title 17 (adopted August 18, 2026)

On August 18, 2026 the Nye County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 to ban the construction and operation of data centers anywhere in Nevada Hydrographic Basin 162 — the Pahrump Valley groundwater basin, which covers more than 500,000 acres across most of southern Nye County and runs east toward the Clark County line. This is not a pause: it is a permanent zoning prohibition, adopted as Bill No. 2026-11 amending Title 17 of the county code. Nye County is the first local government in Nevada to ban data centers outright rather than temporarily. The stated reason is water. Basin 162 is already over-appropriated, meaning the state has granted rights to more water than the basin reliably produces, and commissioners concluded that adding a large new industrial water user would deepen the shortfall. The ban blocks the proposed 900-acre Manse Technology Campus from Gigawatt Development Partners LLC, even though that company says it had already secured water rights for the project. Elsewhere in Nye County a separate county-wide moratorium adopted in June 2026 still applies until the county writes permanent data center regulations.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Madison County AR three-year data center moratorium (2026)

Madison County, AR · Effective August 17, 2026 · Madison County, Ark. — three-year data center moratorium with emergency clause (adopted August 17, 2026; expires August 31, 2029)

The Madison County Quorum Court voted unanimously on August 17, 2026 to impose a three-year moratorium on data centers, running through August 31, 2029. The court attached an emergency clause, which meant the moratorium took effect immediately rather than after the usual waiting period — a detail that matters, because a developer cannot file in the gap. The moratorium is written broadly, covering data centers, digital asset mining businesses and other large-scale computer or server operations, so a cryptocurrency mining operation cannot be argued to fall outside it. The stated purpose is to give county officials time to study data centers and develop regulations addressing their potential costs and benefits. Three years is long for a local pause. Madison County is one of five Arkansas counties that adopted three-year moratoriums, and its is the second-longest in the state after Independence County's. Arkansas saw a cluster of these in August 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Independence County AR five-year data center moratorium (2026)

Independence County, AR · Effective August 11, 2026 · Independence County, Ark. — Quorum Court five-year moratorium on data centers (2026)

The Independence County Quorum Court placed a FIVE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers, reported on August 11, 2026. Five years is extraordinary. The overwhelming majority of local pauses in this dataset run six to eighteen months; the previous longest recorded here was two years, in Lawrence County, Illinois and in a Nash County-area North Carolina measure. Independence County has adopted a pause two and a half times the usual ceiling. That length is worth flagging carefully rather than celebrating. Moratorium defensibility generally turns on reasonableness and on the municipality showing it is actively working toward permanent regulations — the longer the pause, the harder both are to sustain, because at some point a 'temporary' measure becomes a de facto prohibition adopted without the process a prohibition requires. Several states cap the term by statute precisely for this reason: Minnesota at twelve months, Wisconsin at twelve plus one six-month extension, California at two years in aggregate, Maine at renewable 180-day periods. Arkansas county government operates through the Quorum Court under Amendment 55 to the state constitution, and no equivalent express statutory ceiling on county moratoria is asserted here. No challenge is reported. This entry is recorded because a five-year pause is a real measure with real effect, and because it marks the outer edge of what local governments are currently attempting.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Escambia County FL large-scale data center ban (2026)

Escambia County, FL · Effective August 1, 2026 · Escambia County, Fla. — ordinance banning large-scale data centers in unincorporated areas (approved August 2026)

The Escambia County Commission approved an ordinance BANNING large-scale data centers in the unincorporated areas of the county — everywhere outside the City of Pensacola and the Town of Century — and separately started the process for a moratorium. This is a prohibition, not a pause, which puts it in the small group of permanent bans in this dataset alongside Woodford County Kentucky and Nye County Nevada rather than with the moratoriums that make up most of the 2026 record. The territorial limit is the standard one for county land-use authority: Escambia's ban reaches unincorporated territory only, and the two incorporated municipalities inside the county make their own decisions. Pensacola has a separately indexed data center moratorium of its own. The sequencing is worth noting: the county adopted the ban FIRST and then began a moratorium process, which is the reverse of the usual order. A moratorium is normally the holding action taken while permanent rules are written; here the permanent rule came first, and the moratorium appears intended to cover whatever the ban does not. At a later meeting the commissioners stood firm on the existing ban and took no further action.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Austin County TX data center and BESS moratorium (2026)

Austin County, TX · Effective July 27, 2026 · Austin County, Tex. — countywide moratorium on AI data centers and battery energy storage systems (adopted July 27, 2026)

Austin County Commissioners unanimously approved a countywide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers and battery energy storage systems on July 27, 2026, becoming one of the first Texas counties to do so. The moratorium does not outright bar construction; it pauses approvals so the county can evaluate what these developments do. What sets it apart from almost every other pause in this dataset is what the county said it will examine and what it demands of developers in the meantime. The evaluation covers compliance with health, fire and safety requirements, CYBERSECURITY SAFEGUARDS, and enforcement mechanisms that can actually be applied to these projects in the unincorporated parts of the county — including the possible designation of a dedicated energy development zone. And the moratorium REQUIRES prospective developers to submit an equipment manufacturer audit to the county: a full list of every piece of equipment and every component proposed for use in the project. That is a supply-chain disclosure requirement, and no other local measure indexed here asks for one. It gives a rural county visibility into who made the hardware going into a facility on its land, which is a fire-safety question for battery storage and a security question for computing. Austin County was the second Texas county to adopt a data center moratorium after Hill County; San Marcos was the first Texas city, on June 30, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Sierra County NM 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Sierra County, NM · Effective July 21, 2026 · Sierra County, N.M. — 18-month data center moratorium (adopted July 21, 2026)

Sierra County commissioners voted unanimously on July 21, 2026 to impose an eighteen-month moratorium on data centers — one of the longest local pauses in this dataset, and one that nobody expected that morning. The item on the agenda was a resolution simply OPPOSING the development of large-scale data centers in the county, which would have carried no legal force at all. After more than an hour of public comment at the regular Tuesday morning meeting in Truth or Consequences, the commissioners amended the item on the floor into a binding eighteen-month moratorium and passed it. The Albuquerque Journal called it a surprise vote. What prompted it was the emergence of details about a proposed solar-powered data center at Spaceport America, which sits on state trust land inside Sierra County. Opponents argued it would use too much water and damage the environment. Sierra County joined Santa Fe and Socorro counties in pushing back on large-scale data centers near the Spaceport, and New Mexico lawmakers were separately proposing a statewide moratorium for the next legislative session.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Knox County TN one-year data center moratorium (2026)

Knox County, TN · Effective June 23, 2026 · Knox County, Tenn. — one-year data center moratorium resolution (adopted June 23, 2026; expires June 30, 2027)

Knox County Commission adopted a one-year data center moratorium on June 23, 2026. It took effect immediately and runs through June 30, 2027, and the Commission can vote to extend it. The moratorium is unusually carefully drafted for a local measure, and three features are worth knowing. First, the trigger is a peak electric demand of 5 megawatts — a low threshold compared with the 20 to 50 megawatt lines other jurisdictions have drawn — and a facility that REFUSES TO DISCLOSE its power demand is covered too, so a developer cannot escape the moratorium by staying silent. Second, five existing operations are grandfathered by name: Bitdeer Tennessee, Infinity Data Center, Scipio Technologies, Tenhats Knoxville and Windstream Knoxville. Naming them removes the usual argument about who was operating when the ordinance passed. Facilities owned or operated by the State of Tennessee or by Knox County itself are also outside the moratorium, subject to conditions on leasing. Third — and this is the part most local moratoriums lack — existing data centers may not expand their power contracts or switch to alternative energy sources such as gas turbines in order to work around the limits. That closes the two most obvious routes to growing under a freeze. The City of Knoxville, a separate government inside the county, adopted its own one-year moratorium in July 2026; the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission then approved a recommended moratorium and zoning framework on August 13, 2026 for the County Commission to act on.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Imperial County CA CEQA ruling, 330 MW data center EIR (2026)

Imperial County, CA · Imperial County Superior Court (Cal.) — tentative ruling requiring a full EIR for the Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing 330 MW data center (September 1, 2026) (Anderholt, J.)

Judge L. Brooks Anderholt of the Imperial County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling on September 1, 2026 holding that Imperial County must conduct a FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT under the California Environmental Quality Act before approving Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC's 330-megawatt data center, on roughly 75 acres southeast of Aten Road and Clark Road. The ruling identifies two distinct failures. First, the county improperly treated its approvals as MINISTERIAL — meaning a rubber-stamp determination that the application met fixed standards, which under CEQA carries no environmental review obligation at all. The court held the approvals were not ministerial, which restores the review duty. Second, the county relied on a 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW that did not address the current proposal. Nine-year-old analysis of a different project cannot substitute for analysis of this one. The most useful part of the ruling is its treatment of scope. The court found the project encompasses INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE that must be evaluated comprehensively rather than piecemeal: a 330 MW substation, an 862 MWh battery storage system, emergency generation comprising 132 NATURAL GAS GENERATORS, and water treatment facilities. Splitting a data center from its substation, its batteries and its generator farm — and reviewing each as if it were a separate small project — is the standard way large facilities avoid full environmental review, and this ruling forecloses it. The tentative decision prevents grading, construction and physical development from proceeding until proper review occurs. It is a tentative ruling, and no final judgment or appeal is reflected in the located source.

Full entry · News report
Proposed / pending
Jasper County SC data center moratorium and pending ordinance doctrine (2026)

Jasper County, SC · Jasper County, S.C. — first reading of a one-year data center moratorium, enacting a pending ordinance doctrine (2026)

Jasper County Council approved the FIRST READING of a one-year data center moratorium on a Tuesday night — and the same action ALSO ENACTED A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE. That second half is the part worth understanding, and it is the most sophisticated drafting move recorded anywhere in this dataset. A first reading is not an adoption. In South Carolina a county ordinance requires multiple readings over weeks, which leaves an obvious gap: a developer who learns a moratorium is coming can file an application in the interval and argue the pause cannot reach it. This dataset is full of moratoria defeated exactly that way. A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE closes that window by providing that applications filed after the ordinance was formally proposed are judged against the proposed rules rather than the existing ones. In other words, Jasper County made its moratorium effective against filings from the moment it was introduced, not from the moment it is finally adopted. Other jurisdictions have solved the same problem with brute speed — McDonald, Ohio passed an emergency ordinance in under five minutes; Hopkinton, Rhode Island adopted an emergency 60-day ban. Jasper County solved it with doctrine instead, which does not require an emergency and does not expire.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Levy County FL data center moratorium Ord. 2026-05 (2026)

Levy County, FL · Effective October 1, 2026 · Levy County, Fla. Ordinance 2026-05 (adopted September 8, 2026; effective October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027)

Levy County commissioners approved Ordinance 2026-05 on September 8, 2026, temporarily halting the submission, acceptance, processing, review and approval of any application for a data center, large-scale data center, large load customer facility or associated facility. The pause takes effect October 1, 2026 — or whenever the ordinance is filed with the Florida Department of State, if that is later — and runs through September 30, 2027. During that year county staff will study the impacts of these facilities and draft permanent rules on where and how they may be built. The ordinance itself lists the concerns driving it: continuous electric demand, water and cooling systems, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, backup generators, fuel and battery storage, fire protection and telecommunications infrastructure, plus noise, vibration, lighting, heat, construction traffic and added strain on roads, utilities and emergency services. Commissioners had signaled the moratorium in late June 2026 and residents had circulated a petition for a one-year pause. Levy was one of three Florida counties moving on one-year data center moratoriums at the same time.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Steuben County IN six-month data center moratorium (2026)

Steuben County, IN · Effective September 15, 2026 · Steuben County, Ind. — resolution enacting a six-month moratorium on data center construction, adopted September 15, 2026

The Steuben County Board of Commissioners formally enacted a six-month moratorium on data center construction on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, by a resolution adopting an August recommendation from the Steuben County Plan Commission. The pause gives local officials time to draft a permanent zoning ordinance governing where such facilities may go. The county framed this as defensive planning rather than opposition: officials said Steuben County is not completely closed to future technology business, but emphasised that the massive scale of these projects requires clear guardrails first. The urgency has a specific source. Utility companies are ACTIVELY DISCUSSING PLANS TO ROUTE HIGH-TRANSMISSION ELECTRIC LINES THROUGH STEUBEN COUNTY. Transmission capacity is what makes a county a data center target, so new lines are the leading indicator that developers will follow — and the county is moving to have rules written before that happens rather than after. Six months is a short pause by the standards of this dataset, where twelve and eighteen months are common; the drafting timetable is therefore tight and the likelihood of an extension request is real.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Marion County FL 12-month large data center moratorium (2026)

Marion County, FL · Effective September 15, 2026 · Marion County, Fla. — ordinance imposing a moratorium of up to 365 days on large-scale data center applications, adopted September 15, 2026

Marion County commissioners voted on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to enact a 12-month temporary moratorium — up to 365 days — on accepting or processing applications for LARGE-SCALE data centers, carving out exemptions for smaller facilities. The pause covers all development permits, site plans, rezonings and conditional use permits related to major commercial data centers and artificial intelligence processing facilities. The vote is worth recording precisely because it happened twice: the motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Kathy Bryant the lone no, and a subsequent procedural vote to adopt the ordinance passed unanimously 5-0. Bryant did not oppose the moratorium. She opposed the EXEMPTIONS. Her argument, which is the most valuable content here, is that the smaller facilities being let through are not small: 'A 49-megawatt facility is a 100,000 to 200,000-square-foot data center. That is the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 households.' A 49-megawatt project sits just under Florida's 50-megawatt state threshold, and Bryant's point is that a threshold set at 50 megawatts does not separate small from large — it separates regulated from unregulated while leaving something the size of a small city on the unregulated side. She also disputed developer representatives' claims that county staff can handle applications today: 'Our staff has explicitly stated on the record that they are not ready, they do not have the criteria, and they do not [have] all the right questions to ask yet.' Commissioner Matt McClain, supporting the pause, framed it the other way: 'I think the big concern is these really large hyperscale centers. I don't think it's the smaller ones, we can figure those out through the special use permit process.' He also noted the code will need continuous revision: 'It's not like we're going to be able to set this code once and then never touch it again.' Commissioners Craig Curry and Michelle Stone supported giving the community peace of mind while protecting the county's rural character, farmland and Outstanding Florida Springs — including Silver Springs and Rainbow Springs. 'We don't want to turn Marion County into Miami or New York,' Stone said.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Putnam County FL data center moratorium (2026)

Putnam County, FL · Effective September 9, 2026 · Putnam County, Fla. — moratorium on medium and large scale data center projects (second reading approved September 8, 2026; runs to September 2027)

Putnam County commissioners unanimously approved the second reading of a temporary ban on medium and large scale data center projects on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. The ban runs until September 2027. One procedural detail is worth noticing: before voting, the commissioners established a definition for the covered sites. A moratorium on a use that the county code does not define is difficult to enforce, and Putnam County dealt with that first — a sequencing choice several other jurisdictions in this dataset skipped and had to revisit. Putnam acted the same week as Levy County, which adopted Ordinance 2026-05 on September 8 as well, and both sit within a broader Florida pattern that began in mid-2026: Sarasota County adopted a one-year hyperscale moratorium in July, DeSoto County moved toward one, and Lakeland approved a one-year moratorium on first reading on July 21, 2026. The precise definition Putnam adopted — the megawatt or square-footage line separating 'medium and large scale' from smaller facilities — was not published in the coverage located, and neither was a final-adoption confirmation, so this entry is recorded as enacted rather than effective and should be rechecked.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Orangeburg County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026)

Orangeburg County, SC · Effective September 8, 2026 · Orangeburg County, S.C. — one-year data center moratorium (first reading July 23, 2026; third and final reading September 2026)

Orangeburg County Council passed a one-year moratorium on data center construction and development on third and final reading in early September 2026. Under it the county will not accept or act on new applications for data centers or other data processing facilities. The origin is worth recording because it shows how fast these measures now move: Councilwoman Latisha Walker learned that a company was interested in building a data center off Brentwood Drive, just outside downtown Orangeburg. No property had been purchased and no project had been officially announced. The council called a special meeting on July 23, 2026 and unanimously passed first reading of a moratorium — acting on interest alone, before an application existed. Council members said the intent was to pause the project while they gathered details on how it would affect the county before any final decisions were made. South Carolina county ordinances require three readings; this entry records the completed third reading, not the July first reading. Orangeburg is one of several South Carolina counties that enacted data center moratoriums during 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Nash County NC countywide data center moratorium (2026)

Nash County, NC · Effective September 8, 2026 · Nash County, N.C. — countywide temporary moratorium on data center development (2026)

Nash County's commissioners approved a COUNTYWIDE moratorium on the development of data centers. The word countywide is worth pausing on, because in North Carolina it is not redundant. County zoning authority under Chapter 160D generally reaches unincorporated areas, while municipalities within the county zone their own territory and often an extraterritorial ring beyond it. A measure described as countywide raises the question of whether it reaches incorporated municipalities too — which a county ordinarily cannot do. Newport, elsewhere in this dataset, addressed the mirror-image problem from the municipal side by extending its moratorium across its extraterritorial jurisdiction, closing the gap that let a project in Athens simply sit outside the city limits. What Nash County's ordinance actually covers is not established here.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Carlton County MN 1-year data center moratorium (2026)

Carlton County, MN · Effective August 24, 2026 · Carlton County, Minn. — one-year data center interim ordinance (adopted August 24, 2026)

Carlton County's Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted a one-year moratorium on data centers on August 24, 2026. The ordinance prohibits approval of new data center developments in any of the county's townships, and it is written broadly: it covers facilities used for servers, computers, digital storage, cryptocurrency mining and artificial intelligence operations. Residents drove the outcome. The Carlton County Land Stewards pressed the issue through three separate meetings before the board scheduled a hearing, warning among other things that a single hyperscale campus could take up to 1,000 acres of farmland out of production. The board room applauded when the vote passed. The county's Planning Commission must report back to the board on its progress toward permanent regulations by February 2027. Carlton joins a growing group of Minnesota counties adopting moratoriums while state and federal rules lag behind the pace of data center development.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Durham County NC nine-month data center moratorium (2026)

Durham County, NC · Effective August 24, 2026 · Durham County, N.C. — nine-month moratorium on new or expanded data centers (adopted August 24, 2026; runs to May 2027)

Durham County commissioners voted 4-1 on August 24, 2026, after a public hearing, to adopt a nine-month moratorium on new or expanded data centers. It runs until May 2027, and the county set that end date deliberately to align with a moratorium already passed by the City of Durham, so the two governments can coordinate their regulatory approaches rather than produce mismatched rules in the same urban area. That coordination is worth noting on its own: overlapping city and county moratoriums elsewhere in this dataset run on different clocks and create gaps. The exemption is the most interesting part. The county's moratorium does NOT apply to a data center that satisfies three conditions together: it is smaller than 100,000 square feet, it uses a closed-loop cooling system, and it does not use diesel backup generators. That is a performance-based carve-out rather than a size threshold — a small facility still falls under the moratorium if it draws on evaporative cooling or diesel, and the county has effectively published in advance the specification a developer must meet to build during the pause. The purpose is to give county staff time to research and draft permanent data center regulations for county land. The vote came amid public anger across the Triangle over how much land, power and water these facilities consume.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Tulare County CA data center moratorium (extended to Aug 2027)

Tulare County, CA · Effective August 18, 2026 · Tulare County, Cal. — 45-day ordinance banning consideration of new AI data center development (August 2026)

The Tulare County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance in August 2026 banning consideration of any new data center development for FORTY-FIVE DAYS — a 45-day moratorium on consideration of artificial intelligence data centers specifically. The driver is groundwater. Tulare County sits in California's San Joaquin Valley and is subject to obligations under the SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT, the state law requiring over-drafted basins to reach sustainable extraction; groundwater sustainability agency boards operate throughout the county. Concerns over how much groundwater AI data centers could extract prompted the ordinance directly. Supervisor Larry Micari referred to the groundwater sustainability agency boards and the issues already facing county farming. The stated purpose is to give county planners time to alter zoning regulations that are ill-prepared to consider the water, energy and infrastructure demands AI data centers bring. This is the same structural conflict recorded for Patterson, California — a jurisdiction already under a legal duty to reduce groundwater pumping cannot absorb a large new industrial water user without that duty being implicated — but here at county scale across an agricultural region. Forty-five days is the initial term California's urgency-ordinance procedure allows, and it is extendable; supervisors were separately discussing a measure to automatically oppose AI data centers within county boundaries, which would be a standing position rather than a pause.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Oneida County WI one-year data center moratorium (2026)

Oneida County, WI · Effective August 18, 2026 · Oneida County, Wis. Resolution 56-2026 / Ordinance Amendment 02-2026, amending Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance § 9.57 (2026)

The Oneida County Board of Supervisors voted to impose a ONE-YEAR moratorium on new data center development in the county's zoned areas, giving the Planning and Development Committee time to study the industry's impacts. It was adopted as Resolution 56-2026 / Ordinance Amendment 02-2026, amending Section 9.57 of the county's zoning and shoreland protection ordinance. That section detail is the interesting part, and it is a drafting technique worth knowing: Section 9.57 PREVIOUSLY COVERED A SINCE-EXPIRED LIVESTOCK FACILITY MORATORIUM. Rather than create new authority, the county reused the slot where its last moratorium had lived. A county that has paused something before already has a tested provision, a known procedure and, importantly, a precedent that the mechanism is lawful in that jurisdiction — which is exactly the defensibility question raised elsewhere in this dataset, where Garfield Township Michigan chose a zoning-amendment route because ad hoc moratoriums were losing in court. For twelve months the county will not accept, process or issue permits for new data center development OR EXPANSION in unincorporated, zoned areas, unless the board extends or replaces the moratorium sooner. Two limits are recorded plainly: it does NOT apply retroactively to projects that already held valid permits, and officials said no data center applications were pending at adoption.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Anderson County SC six-month data center moratorium (2026)

Anderson County, SC · Effective August 18, 2026 · Anderson County, S.C. — six-month data center moratorium (third and final reading adopted August 18, 2026)

Anderson County Council approved a six-month moratorium on data centers, passing the third and final reading 7-0 on August 18, 2026. County Administrator Rusty Burns confirmed the final reading had carried. The ordinance's own findings say that inadequately regulated development of multiple data centers may harm neighboring property owners, and that exponential growth in the industry could strain essential county resources including the electric power grid, water supply and local infrastructure. It also states plainly that Anderson County has no regulatory framework or zoning ordinance structure capable of managing the scale or impact of the industry — which is the reason for the pause. One detail makes this ordinance unusual among the local moratoriums in this dataset: it explains itself partly by reference to two bills in the South Carolina legislature, H.5286 and H.5526, which would have barred counties from approving new data center projects until January 1, 2028. Neither bill passed, and the ordinance says they will likely be reintroduced next year. In other words, the county acted locally because the state did not act — and said so on the record. Anderson County is one of several South Carolina counties that enacted data center moratoriums during 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Amherst County VA data center zoning rules (2026)

Amherst County, VA · Effective August 18, 2026 · Amherst County, Va. — zoning changes covering future data centers (approved August 2026)

It was standing-room-only at the Amherst County Board of Supervisors meeting as county leaders took up highly anticipated zoning ordinances. After NEARLY FOUR HOURS of discussion, supervisors voted to approve major zoning changes for vape shops, medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and FUTURE DATA CENTERS looking to set up shop in the county. Two things are worth drawing out. The first is that the data center rules arrived inside a general zoning package rather than as a standalone measure — the same ordinance session handled vape shops and dispensaries, and the reported restrictions for those uses keep them away from areas frequented by children. A county addressing data centers as one item in a routine zoning update is treating them as an ordinary land-use question rather than an emergency, which is a different posture from the emergency and urgency ordinances that fill this dataset. The second is the four hours. This record contains many accounts of intense public engagement — fifty speakers in Canton, a hundred people spilling onto the lawn in Amherst Ohio, a hearing relocated to a convention centre in Wisconsin — and a four-hour session in a county of Amherst's size belongs with them. What the located source does not provide is the substance of the data center rules themselves, which is the material gap on this entry. Virginia is the largest data center market in the world, and its local measures carry weight accordingly.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Warrick County IN 180-day data center moratorium (2026)

Warrick County, IN · Effective August 11, 2026 · Warrick County, Ind. — 180-day data center moratorium (adopted August 11, 2026)

The Warrick County Board of Commissioners voted UNANIMOUSLY on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 to pause any data center development for 180 days. The votes came from Sarah Seaton, Stacey Franz and Terry Phillippe at a SPECIAL MEETING held at 9 a.m. The procedural urgency is the part worth recording. The evening before, the Warrick County Area Plan Commission voted to send the regulating ordinance to the commissioners and SUSPENDED ITS OWN RULES in order to meet the timeline for the special meeting. A plan commission suspending its rules and a board of commissioners convening a special morning session on consecutive days is not how routine zoning work proceeds; it is what a jurisdiction does when it believes an application may arrive before the pause is in place. Several entries in this dataset record jurisdictions that moved at ordinary speed and lost the project to a filing, an annexation agreement or a development agreement that landed first. Warrick County moved fast enough. The purpose of the 180 days is specific: to allow the county's DATA CENTER STUDY COMMITTEE to comb through a proposed ordinance regulating data centers in Warrick County and prepare it to come before the Area Plan Commission for recommendation, with the APC set to discuss that ordinance in November. Warrick County is in southwestern Indiana, near Evansville, in a state where nearly a third of counties had moved to restrict data centers by mid-2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Chippewa County WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026)

Chippewa County, WI · Effective August 11, 2026 · Chippewa County, Wis. — 12-month large-scale data center moratorium (adopted August 11, 2026)

The Chippewa County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a 12-month moratorium on new large-scale data centers at its August 11, 2026 meeting, extending it from the 10 months originally proposed so staff would have enough time to write zoning rules. The moratorium's stated basis is the electrical, water and other infrastructure demand that large data centers place on a rural county. An important limit: Chippewa County does not zone its entire territory. The moratorium reaches only the six towns that have adopted the county's zoning ordinance — Anson, Eagle Point, Hallie, Lafayette, Wheaton and Woodmohr. Towns that zone themselves are unaffected. No data center had actually been proposed in Chippewa County when the board acted; the county describes the pause as time to put land use regulations in place to protect public health, safety and general welfare, not as a permanent bar on data centers. Neighbouring Barron County moved in the same direction, and Eau Claire County began work on its own moratorium in September 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Wabash County IN data center moratorium (Ordinance 2026-85-08)

Wabash County, IN · Effective August 6, 2026 · Wabash County, Ind. — Ordinance 2026-85-08, Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers (Aug. 6, 2026)

Wabash County, Indiana enacted Ordinance 2026-85-08 on August 6, 2026, imposing a temporary moratorium on data centers across all zoning districts in the county. The moratorium was enacted following a public hearing and prevents new data center development county-wide while the county evaluates its land-use regulations for such facilities. Indiana has seen one of the most extensive local responses to data center expansion in the United States, with nearly one-third of Indiana counties adopting restrictions, moratoriums, or bans.

Full entry · Agency page
13 more
Carter County TN data center and crypto mining moratorium (2026) · Carter County, TN · In effect
Athens County OH township and county data center moratoria (2026) · Athens County, OH · In effect
Logan County KY 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Logan County, KY · In effect
Caroline County MD, Federalsburg and Ridgely data center moratoria (2026) · Caroline County, MD · In effect
Polk County WI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Polk County, WI · In effect
Pine County MN 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Pine County, MN · In effect
Snohomish County WA six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Snohomish County, WA · In effect
Champaign County IL one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Champaign County, IL · In effect
Freeborn County MN data center moratorium extension (2026) · Freeborn County, MN · In effect
Palm Beach County FL one-year large data center moratorium (2026) · Palm Beach County, FL · In effect
Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincor · King County, WA · In effect
PA Allegheny AFST · Allegheny County, PA · In effect
Montgomery County TN proposed data center zoning rules (2026) · Montgomery County, TN · Proposed / pending

City / local consumer protection rules (120)

Enacted (not yet in effect)
Seattle CB 121267 grocery surveillance pricing ban (2026)

Seattle, WA · Effective September 1, 2027 · Seattle Council Bill 121267, Fair and Transparent Pricing ordinance (new SMC ch. 7.35; passed Sept. 22, 2026)

On September 22, 2026 the Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to pass the Fair and Transparent Pricing ordinance (Council Bill 121267; reported by Supermarket News as the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act), which bans large grocery retailers and delivery platforms from using a shopper's personal data, through algorithms, to set individualized prices for groceries and other essentials. Data covered includes things like browsing history, location, inferred income, race, gender, employment status, social media activity and chatbot conversations. Prices must be clearly posted and available to all shoppers equally, while ordinary coupons, loyalty programs and sales remain allowed. City officials describe Seattle as the first U.S. city to adopt such a ban.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Irwindale CA data center ban ordinance (2026)

Irwindale, CA · Effective September 16, 2026 · Irwindale, Cal. — zoning code ordinance prohibiting data centers, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026

Irwindale's City Council unanimously approved an ordinance banning data centers in the city on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, writing the prohibition into the zoning code. This is a PERMANENT BAN, not a temporary moratorium — an important distinction, because most of the local measures in this dataset are pauses of 45 days to 18 months while officials write rules. Irwindale decided not to write rules. The city's stated reasons, recorded when it recently updated its zoning code, were data centers' substantial and continuous electrical demand often supported by diesel or gas-powered backup generators, significant noise, significant water use for cooling systems, and the pressure such facilities create for related infrastructure and land-use changes. Mayor Manuel Ortiz framed the ordinance as compatible with growth: Irwindale should remain open to responsible economic development while carefully weighing the impact data centers would create. Irwindale joins a dense San Gabriel Valley cluster — El Monte and Monterey Park have both imposed bans or moratoriums. Two of those neighbours went further than an ordinance: Monterey Park and Alhambra approved BALLOT INITIATIVES putting the ban to voters, on the theory that a voter-enacted ban is harder to undo, since a future council can only overturn it with another ballot measure. Irwindale's mayor says the city has no plans for a ballot initiative, which means its ban rests on an ordinary council majority and a future council could repeal it.

Full entry · News report
In effect
McDonald OH one-year data center moratorium (2026)

McDonald, OH · Effective September 16, 2026 · McDonald, Ohio — emergency ordinance imposing a one-year data center moratorium, adopted September 16, 2026

McDonald's village council took less than five minutes at a special meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to approve an EMERGENCY ORDINANCE placing a one-year moratorium on data centers. The brevity is the story. Recent meetings on the subject had run two hours or more, and on the Tuesday before the vote residents stood outside McDonald High School holding signs against data centers as people filed into the gymnasium to meet representatives of the developer. By the time the council convened, the argument was over. The moratorium means the village will not ACCEPT, PROCESS OR CONSIDER any applications for any data centers in the village — all three verbs, which closes the routes a narrower pause leaves open. Adopting it as an EMERGENCY measure matters under Ohio law: an emergency ordinance takes effect immediately on passage rather than after the usual waiting period, and in Ohio it is also not subject to referendum. For a village facing an active developer courting residents in a school gymnasium, immediate effect is the whole point — a thirty-day delay is thirty days in which an application can be filed. Councilman Brian Bosheff was unable to attend. Council President Sean Schmidt said council and village officials will always do what is in the best interest of the village and its residents.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cumberland RI data center zoning prohibition, Ordinance 26-22 (2026)

Cumberland, RI · Effective September 16, 2026 · Cumberland, R.I. — Ordinance 26-22 amending the zoning ordinance to list data centers as a prohibited use, adopted 6-1 on September 16, 2026

The Cumberland Town Council voted 6-1 on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to amend the town's zoning ordinance so that DATA CENTERS ARE LISTED AS A PROHIBITED USE. This is a permanent prohibition written into the code, not a pause. Ordinance 26-22 was taken up for public hearing as old business and passed on a roll call vote; all seven council members were present. It had come out of the ordinance subcommittee's September 2 meeting with a favourable recommendation on a 2-1 vote. The sponsor, DISTRICT 4 COUNCILOR JODI SWEET, explained where the idea came from and it is an unusually candid account of how these ordinances propagate. She said it came to her AFTER WATCHING WHAT A NEIGHBOURING RHODE ISLAND TOWN WENT THROUGH when a data center sought to locate there. She then looked at what the state was doing and FOUND THAT MOST RELATED BILLS SAT IN COMMITTEE this legislative session — so the town acted because the state had not. Planning Director Amelia Morton and Town Director Romeo Mendes prepared a report with statistics attached to the ordinance. Sweet's figures, as she gave them: data centers have grown significantly larger since around 2023; a facility can use more energy in a day than an entire small city; ELECTRICITY PRICES IN VIRGINIA HAVE RISEN 267% OVER FIVE YEARS; and a large-scale data center can use as much water in a day as 16,000 HOUSEHOLDS — which she noted is CLOSE TO THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN CUMBERLAND. She also cited Rhode Island receiving only 80% of normal rainfall from June 2025 to May 2026, and described an expanding data center in a Massachusetts city, currently 352,000 square feet and built next to a neighbourhood, where residents deal with noise and diesel fumes from 27 BACKUP GENERATORS. Sweet framed the ordinance as an attempt to ensure power companies, the state and tech corporations 'get themselves in order' before anyone tries to build in town — and added, candidly, that 'no law or ordinance is forever.' Four members of the public spoke, all in favour.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Valparaiso IN open-ended data center moratorium (2026)

Valparaiso, IN · Effective September 1, 2026 · City of Valparaiso, Ind. — data center moratorium with no fixed expiration date (2026)

Valparaiso City Council unanimously approved a moratorium on new data center development, effective immediately — and it carries NO FIXED EXPIRATION DATE. That is the distinguishing feature, and it is rare. Almost every local measure in this dataset states a term: forty-five days, six months, a year, eighteen months, three years. Valparaiso instead tied the moratorium's life to a DELIVERABLE: it holds new data center proposals while the city's Plan Commission reviews and recommends changes to Valparaiso's UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, and ends when that work is done. There is a real argument for structuring it this way. A fixed term creates a deadline the city may miss, after which either the pause lapses with no rules in place or the council must extend it — and extensions are where moratoriums run into their statutory ceilings, as officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada have each said on the record elsewhere in this record. Tying the pause to completion of the ordinance removes that cliff. The corresponding risk is the mirror image: an open-ended pause with no external deadline has no forcing function, and it is precisely the shape a developer challenging a moratorium as indefinite or arbitrary would attack. Indiana's own practice matters here, and the located source does not address whether an open-ended municipal moratorium is sound under Indiana law. Valparaiso is in Porter County, which also contains Portage — whose Technology Campus district ordinance is the most numerically detailed instrument in this dataset.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Shawnee OK data center moratorium through 2027

Shawnee, OK · Effective September 1, 2026 · City of Shawnee, Okla. — temporary moratorium on new data centers, effective immediately through the end of 2027

The City of Shawnee approved a temporary moratorium on new data centers, putting new proposals on hold THROUGH THE END OF 2027. It takes effect immediately. The end date is what distinguishes it. Almost every moratorium in this dataset is expressed as a duration — forty-five days, six months, twelve months — which means it expires on a rolling date the public has to calculate. Shawnee instead fixed a CALENDAR ENDPOINT, which from a mid-2026 adoption is roughly sixteen months. A fixed endpoint is easier for residents and developers to hold in mind and harder for a city to let lapse unnoticed, and it aligns the pause with budget and legislative cycles rather than with the accident of when the vote happened. It also puts Shawnee near the long end of this dataset's distribution, past the twelve-to-eighteen-month window municipal officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada have each described on the record as the practical or statutory limit. Oklahoma has been unusually active on data centers — the state enacted HB 2992 protecting ratepayers from large-load costs and SB 259 on groundwater, Oklahoma City adopted an emergency rezoning moratorium, Edmond a permit moratorium, Tulsa a moratorium that ran from March, and four tribal nations have acted, including a Cherokee Nation ban on hyperscale development.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Green Township OH moratorium on all new development (2026)

Green Township, OH · Effective September 1, 2026 · Green Township, Ohio — trustees' moratorium on all new development, adopted to prevent additional AI data center projects (2026)

Green Township's trustees passed a moratorium on ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT — not data centers specifically, but every kind of new development — expressly to prevent additional AI data center projects from starting in the township. This is the most sweeping instrument recorded anywhere in this dataset, and the reason it takes that form is almost certainly a limitation of Ohio township authority rather than a desire to halt all construction. Ohio townships have narrower zoning powers than municipalities, and a township without a data-center-specific definition in its resolution may have no clean way to single the use out. Halting everything reaches the target without needing a definition at all. That sidesteps the definitional problem this dataset records repeatedly — Poway trying to ban 'AI data centers' as a workload category, Marysville needing an enumerated list plus a server-room exclusion, a Port Angeles councilmember arguing the whole definitional exercise should be abandoned in favour of regulating impacts. It also carries an obvious cost that no other entry here carries: a blanket development moratorium stops housing, retail and every unrelated project too. Breadth is what makes it effective and also what makes it hardest to defend, since a measure justified by concern about one use but applied to all uses is exposed to the argument that it is not reasonably tailored to its purpose. No challenge is reported. Ohio is the most active state in the country on this question, with at least 138 municipalities and townships holding active data center moratoriums as of September 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Garfield Township MI data center and crypto mining ban (2026)

Garfield Township, MI · Effective August 25, 2026 · Charter Township of Garfield, Mich. — one-year ban on data centers and cryptocurrency mining adopted under a zoning ordinance amendment (August 25, 2026)

Garfield Township's board unanimously banned data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities for one year on August 25, 2026, with an option to extend for six more months. Township Supervisor Joe McManus said the pause lets officials plan properly for future proposals and update the township's zoning ordinance. The procedural choice behind it is the reason this entry is worth reading. Rather than adopt a standalone moratorium ordinance or resolution — the route most townships take — Garfield's Planning Commission first recommended an amendment to the ZONING ORDINANCE itself that authorizes temporary bans, and the moratorium was then enacted under that authority. Township officials said plainly why: municipalities that imposed knee-jerk moratoriums without going through this process are being challenged in court and losing. In other words Garfield spent the extra procedural steps to buy defensibility, which is a distinction that matters a great deal when a developer sues. The practical effect is to stall a proposal by Illinois-based developer Tom Cervenka to repurpose a building on Cass Road as a small-scale data center. Garfield Township is in Grand Traverse County in northern Michigan, and its action came while Michigan legislators were still debating a statewide data center moratorium.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Chesapeake Beach MD townwide data center prohibition (2026)

Chesapeake Beach, MD · Effective August 20, 2026 · Town of Chesapeake Beach, Md. Ordinance O-26-14 (adopted August 20, 2026)

Data centers are no longer permitted anywhere in Chesapeake Beach. The Town Council approved ORDINANCE O-26-14 without opposition on August 20, 2026, after a public hearing, prohibiting the facilities in every town zoning district. The mechanism is worth understanding because it is cleaner than most prohibitions in this dataset. The ordinance does two things at once: it REMOVES data centers from the list of uses permitted in the town's Maritime Commercial zone — the only district where they had been allowed — and it ADDS them to the section of the land-use table covering EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED uses. Data centers were already not permitted in any of the town's other zoning districts. Deleting the one permission and simultaneously naming the use as expressly prohibited closes both halves of the question: a developer cannot argue the use is permitted somewhere, and cannot argue it is merely unaddressed and therefore allowable by analogy to a similar use. That second argument is the one that has caught out jurisdictions whose codes were simply silent — Clayton, Ohio adopted a moratorium precisely because its code had no definition and a data center could arguably enter as a warehouse. Chesapeake Beach is a small town on the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland, and this is a permanent prohibition rather than a pause.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Ypsilanti Township MI electric utility infrastructure moratorium (2026)

Ypsilanti Township, MI · Effective August 18, 2026 · Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Mich. — six-month land-use moratorium on major electric utility facilities (adopted August 18, 2026)

Ypsilanti Township's Board of Trustees unanimously approved a land-use moratorium on August 18, 2026 — and the thing it regulates is not data centers. It places a SIX-MONTH PAUSE on land use for the establishment or substantial expansion of a MAJOR ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITY. That is a genuinely different instrument from everything else in this dataset, and it is the most transferable idea recovered in this triage. A hyperscale computing facility cannot run without dedicated high-capacity power, which in practice means a new on-site substation. A township that regulates the SUBSTATION reaches the project without ever having to define, classify or prohibit a 'data center' — and without the definitional fights that have forced other jurisdictions to amend their codes. The target here is specific. The University of Michigan had announced days earlier that it had selected a preferred location for what it describes as a computing research facility, on a Textile Road plot the university confirmed purchasing in March. The project includes a U-M academic research facility AND A CLASSIFIED RESEARCH FACILITY FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY's work — and an electrical substation, which U-M said it would build with DTE Energy as a dedicated on-site facility. Township Supervisor Brenda Stumbo said the pause allows the township to evaluate and adopt ordinances regulating the kind of infrastructure required to power projects like it. The township is therefore asserting land-use authority over the power supply to a federal national-laboratory classified facility, which is an unusual posture worth watching.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Swatara Township PA data center ordinance (2026)

Swatara Township, PA · Effective August 17, 2026 · Swatara Township, Pa. — ordinance governing data centers and revising the residential forest district (adopted August 2026)

The Swatara Township Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted an ordinance at its regular monthly August 2026 meeting that revises the residential forest district and governs data centers. The data center provisions are among the more complete in this dataset, and they are specific enough to be usable. The ordinance ESTABLISHES DEFINITIONS for data centers and places them as an ALLOWED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, with limitations including a 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT and a 300-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL properties. Three submission requirements go further than most: the applicant must produce DOCUMENTATION FROM AN ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDER THAT WILL SERVE THE DATA CENTER, a TRAFFIC STUDY, and an EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. The electric-service documentation is the notable one. It requires a developer to demonstrate that power is actually available and committed before the township approves anything — which addresses the problem several jurisdictions in this dataset have run into from the other end, where a facility is approved locally and the grid consequences surface afterwards. Fort Worth, Texas reached the same idea by a different route, requiring evidence of PUCT or ERCOT interconnection approval at multiple stages of development review. A 35-foot height cap is also notably low for an industrial use and would constrain building form considerably.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Hurlock MD three-year data center moratorium (2026)

Hurlock, MD · Effective August 10, 2026 · Hurlock, Md. — three-year moratorium on data centers (August 2026)

The Town of Hurlock approved a THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers at an August 2026 meeting. Three years places Hurlock among the longest local pauses recorded in this dataset — behind only Independence County, Arkansas at five years, and ahead of the two-year measures in Lawrence County, Illinois and elsewhere. For a town of Hurlock's size on Maryland's Eastern Shore, a three-year horizon is less an interim study period than a decision to keep the question closed for the foreseeable future. That is worth stating plainly rather than treating a three-year 'temporary' measure as equivalent to a six-month one. Hurlock sits in a notably active corner of Maryland. This dataset separately records Cambridge, also in Dorchester County, adopting a one-year moratorium in August, and Federalsburg described in reporting as the first Eastern Shore community to act. Prince George's County has a two-year moratorium indexed. Maryland is also the state whose Governor, Wes Moore, said in September 2026 that he would 'absolutely sign' a statewide data center moratorium if one reached his desk in 2027 — so the local measures are accumulating in a state where the executive has signalled he would ratify them at the state level.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Portage IN Technology Campus district data center rules (2026)

Portage, IN · Effective August 4, 2026 · City of Portage, Ind. — Technology Campus district zoning ordinance governing data centers (adopted August 4, 2026)

Portage City Council unanimously adopted a data center ordinance on August 4, 2026 that is the most numerically specific municipal instrument in this dataset. It creates a new zoning classification — the Technology Campus, or TC, district — and makes it the ONLY zoning code that can be applied to a data center project. A developer cannot site a data center anywhere else in Portage, full stop. Inside the TC district the numbers are these: noise may not exceed 55 DECIBELS; no structure may exceed 65 FEET in height; and a facility must sit at least 500 FEET back from a residential district, or 200 feet from other zoned properties. The council tightened two of those on the floor, cutting the noise limit from the 65 decibels originally proposed and the height from 75 feet — so the adopted rules are stricter than what the Planning Commission recommended. And for the largest facilities there is a second gate: a project meeting the HYPERSCALE definition — electrical load exceeding 50 megawatts OR a campus greater than 500,000 square feet — must obtain planned development approval within the TC district, which is a discretionary council decision rather than an administrative one. The TC district is described as established for technology-focused business, light manufacturing and data service usage. Portage is in Porter County in northwest Indiana, where nearly a third of Indiana counties had moved to restrict data centers by July 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cary NC 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Cary, NC · Effective August 1, 2026 · Town of Cary, N.C. — 18-month moratorium on all data center development (approved August 2026)

Cary Town Council unanimously approved an EIGHTEEN-MONTH moratorium on ALL data center development in August 2026. The length puts it among the longest local pauses in this dataset, and the town was specific about what the time is for: staff will study power demand and grid capacity, water consumption, noise and vibration effects, and site design and buffering, while engaging the community and coordinating with regional partners. Staff will give periodic progress updates to council, with a decision on a permanent ordinance expected in February. The carve-out is the part worth copying. The moratorium expressly excepts 'enterprise, small-scale, collocated data processing equipment, such as server rooms at offices or hospitals' DRAWING LESS THAN ONE MEGAWATT of demand. That is a cleanly drafted exclusion: it is defined by function and by a hard numerical threshold, so a hospital's server closet is unambiguously outside the moratorium while anything of real scale is inside. Several other jurisdictions in this dataset had to solve the same problem by describing the excluded use in words alone, which leaves argument room. Not everyone supported it — Cary resident Michael Morris, who works in IT, told council the town has been about growth for twenty years and the moratorium 'sends the wrong message,' while accepting that a data center should not go next to a supermarket. Cary is in Wake County, in the Research Triangle, where Durham County and the City of Durham also paused data centers in 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Federalsburg MD three-year data center moratorium (2026)

Federalsburg, MD · Effective August 1, 2026 · Town of Federalsburg, Md. — three-year data center moratorium (August 2026)

Federalsburg council members passed a THREE-YEAR moratorium on data centers at their August 2026 meeting, and separate reporting describes the town as the first Eastern Shore community to go that far. Three years is at the outer edge of every local pause in this dataset. Only five Arkansas counties, the Town of Highlands in New York, and a reported five-year moratorium in Independence County, Arkansas match or exceed it — and it is two to three times the ceilings municipal officials have stated on the record elsewhere in this record. A Minnesota city development director told her council twelve months was that state's statutory maximum; a Wisconsin village administrator described twelve months plus a single six-month extension, adding that 'moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever'; a Nevada city attorney assessed them as defensible for twelve to eighteen months before permanent code changes become necessary. Maryland municipal authority is not addressed in the located source and may be broader. The point is flagged rather than resolved, but it matters here more than usual: Federalsburg sits inside Caroline County, whose commissioners adopted a ONE-year moratorium for unincorporated areas on July 21, and alongside Ridgely, which adopted ONE year within its own limits. Three neighbouring governments reached terms differing by a factor of three for the same use in the same county within weeks — which suggests the term is being set by local appetite rather than by any shared reading of what the law permits.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cherry Hill NJ data center prohibited-use ordinance (2026)

Cherry Hill, NJ · Effective July 28, 2026 · Cherry Hill Township, N.J. — zoning ordinance designating data centers a non-permitted use (adopted July 28, 2026)

Cherry Hill Township Council unanimously passed an ordinance on July 28, 2026 listing data centers as a non-permitted land use anywhere within the township. This is a permanent zoning prohibition, not a pause. The drafting detail that makes it workable is the carve-out: the ordinance distinguishes the now-forbidden data centers — facilities used for artificial intelligence or cloud storage — from the small server rooms a standalone business keeps for its own file storage, which remain permitted. Without that line a literal prohibition on 'data centers' would sweep in every dentist's office with a server closet. Because the use is simply not permitted, a developer who wanted to build one in future would need a use variance from the township zoning board, which is generally the hardest land-use approval to obtain in New Jersey. Mayor David Fleisher framed the decision as pre-emptive: 'We don't think that Cherry Hill should be a guinea pig… while the technology is evolving, we wanted to be proactive and make sure that we eliminated a problem before it became one.' Cherry Hill is one of a large group of South Jersey and statewide municipalities that formally banned large-scale data centers during 2026 — by late August more than fifty New Jersey towns had prohibited the use outright, the densest municipal ban wave in the country.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cottage Grove WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Cottage Grove, WI · Effective July 20, 2026 · Village of Cottage Grove, Wis. — 18-month data center moratorium (adopted July 20, 2026)

The Village of Cottage Grove board unanimously passed an eighteen-month moratorium on new data center development on July 20, 2026 — one of the longest local pauses in this dataset. Board members said the point is to give the village time to gather information about data center impacts and develop best practices for regulating them, and also to give a new Dane County task force studying data centers, on which Cottage Grove has representation, time to produce guidance for municipalities. The reason the village needed its own moratorium at all is the useful part. Dane County had already passed a temporary pause on data centers, but that county pause DOES NOT APPLY to municipalities that have their own zoning codes — and Cottage Grove does. A county-level moratorium in Wisconsin, as in many states, reaches only the territory the county actually zones. Any reader assuming a county pause covers everything inside the county's boundaries would be wrong, and the gap is exactly where an incorporated village sits. Wisconsin had a wide moratorium wave in 2026: temporary bans were in effect in Green, Dodge, Door and Manitowoc counties, Madison had passed one, Chippewa County adopted a twelve-month pause in August and Eau Claire County began drafting in September. Democratic state lawmakers had proposed a statewide moratorium in February 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Knoxville TN one-year large data center moratorium (2026)

Knoxville, TN · Effective July 7, 2026 · City of Knoxville, Tenn. — emergency ordinance imposing a one-year data center moratorium (adopted July 7, 2026; expires July 7, 2027)

Knoxville City Council unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on July 7, 2026 imposing a one-year moratorium on the permitting, construction or development of large data centers requiring ten megawatts or more of power within the city. It took effect immediately — that is what the emergency designation does — and runs through July 7, 2027. The ordinance's recitals are unusually explicit about why, and they go well beyond the usual electricity-and-water framing. They cite the sheer size of some data centers, their effects on neighborhoods, the demand they place on energy and water, Knoxville's own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and the fact that data centers often provide few jobs in the community. That last point is worth noting: the jobs-versus-burden trade is the argument developers usually make to a city, and Knoxville wrote its skepticism of that trade into the instrument. The Mayor framed the pause as protecting clean air and clean water. Knoxville acted two weeks after Knox County, the surrounding county government, adopted its own one-year moratorium on June 23, 2026 at a lower 5 MW threshold — two separate governments, two separate measures, two different trigger levels covering overlapping ground.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Statute
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.

Full entry · Statute
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.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Salem OR 120-day data center moratorium (Res. 2026-40)

Salem, OR · Effective September 21, 2026 · City of Salem, Ore. — council vote initiating a temporary data center moratorium (August 3, 2026); DLCD 45-day notice due by August 10, 2026

Salem's City Council unanimously adopted a 120-day moratorium on data center construction and development on September 21, 2026 (Resolution No. 2026-40). It took effect immediately and runs to January 19, 2027 unless extended; Oregon law lets the city extend it up to six months after another hearing. It covers every data center that is a primary use, regardless of size, plus accessory data centers over 2 megawatts with a power usage effectiveness above 1.5. The city must keep processing Verrus's Oakline at Mill Creek application, filed before the moratorium, but construction can be barred while the pause lasts. The council started this process with a unanimous vote on August 3, 2026; a Data Center Task Force is due to report December 7.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Newport NC data center moratorium (2026)

Newport, NC · Effective September 16, 2026 · Newport, N.C. — temporary moratorium on data centers, data processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining and associated uses, town and ETJ, at least one year (2026)

The Newport Town Council approved a temporary moratorium on data center development while town officials complete a comprehensive rewrite of the town's development regulations. Three features distinguish it. First, the SCOPE is broad by definition rather than by size: it covers data centers, data processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining operations AND associated uses — the 'associated uses' language is what prevents a developer from recharacterising a project to slip the net. Second, it applies not only within the Town of Newport but across its EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, the belt of unincorporated land outside the town limits that North Carolina municipalities may zone. ETJ coverage matters enormously here, because a town-limits-only pause simply moves the project a mile down the road, and this dataset records an Athens moratorium defeated precisely because the site lay outside the city limits. Third, the term is 'at least one year' — a floor, not a ceiling, which is unusual. Newport's current Unified Development Ordinance does not specifically address data centers or establish any standards governing them, and a comprehensive rewrite was already underway. Town Manager Michele Querry framed the moratorium as the opportunity to take a thoughtful approach to data centers within that rewrite.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Gary IN mayoral executive order data center moratorium (2026)

Gary, IN · Effective September 16, 2026 · Gary, Ind. — mayoral executive order declaring a one-year moratorium on data center construction, September 16, 2026

Gary Mayor Eddie Melton declared a one-year moratorium on the construction of data centers in the city on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, by EXECUTIVE ORDER. Two things make this different from almost every other local measure in this dataset. The first is the INSTRUMENT: this is a unilateral mayoral act, not an ordinance adopted by a council after hearings. That makes it fast, and it makes it comparatively fragile — an executive order generally reaches what the executive controls, and its ability to bind land-use permitting depends on the mayor's authority under Indiana law and the city's own code, which the reporting does not address. The second, and more striking, is the REASON. Melton did not cite grid capacity, water, noise, setbacks or property values — the grounds on which essentially every other measure indexed here rests. He said in a release that he issued the order because of CONCERNS VOICED BY SOME TECH LEADERS who called for a slowdown of the rapid advance of artificial intelligence over fears about possible risks. He added: 'I also believe the federal government has an opportunity to establish thoughtful guardrails around the continued advancement of artificial intelligence.' In the week before the order, tech leaders had warned publicly of a potential dark future in which artificial intelligence threatens humanity. This is, so far as this dataset records, the only local land-use measure in the United States justified by AI EXISTENTIAL RISK rather than by local environmental or infrastructure impacts — a municipality using the one lever it has, control of construction, to register a position on a question of national and global technology policy.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Arcata CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)

Arcata, CA · Effective September 16, 2026 · Arcata, Cal. — interim urgency ordinance establishing a 45-day data center moratorium, adopted 5-0 September 16, 2026

The Arcata City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0, on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to adopt an INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE establishing a 45-day moratorium on RECEIVING, PROCESSING OR APPROVING any application for a data center land use. Councilmembers were told that if they approved it, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY GO INTO EFFECT — and it did. The council cited concerns over LAND AVAILABILITY, RESOURCE USE, and the ABSENCE OF A REGULATORY framework. The council had revisited the conversation after staff presented a presentation explaining the moratorium and what it would entail for the city. Two things make this worth noting beyond being another 45-day pause. First, the three-verb formulation — receiving, processing OR approving — is the most complete operative scope available. A pause that only bars approval leaves an application on file accruing whatever rights the law gives it; barring receipt stops the clock before it starts. Second, ARCATA IS IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, and so is Eureka, which adopted its own 45-day data center moratorium roughly two weeks earlier and has since directed staff to draft zoning capping data centers at 20,000 square feet. Eureka's planning staff put the local grid constraint on the record: one PG&E substation serving the city is already at capacity and another has about ten megawatts of headroom, against a typical modern data center ask of fifty to a hundred. Arcata sits on the same constrained corner of the PG&E system, roughly eight miles away. This is the fifth California city in about two weeks to adopt a 45-day pause — after Gilroy, Richmond, Eureka and Marina.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Richmond CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)

Richmond, CA · Effective September 15, 2026 · Richmond, Cal. — 45-day interim moratorium on new data centers, approved September 15, 2026

The Richmond City Council approved a 45-day moratorium on new data centers on Tuesday, September 15, 2026. The 45-day figure is not arbitrary: California Government Code section 65858 lets a city adopt an interim urgency ordinance freezing land uses for 45 days by a four-fifths vote, then extend it once for 10 months and 15 days, and once more for a year — a maximum of two years. Almost every California pause in this dataset starts at exactly 45 days for this reason, and the real question for any of them is whether the council comes back and extends. Richmond's adoption came the same night the Hayward City Council directed staff to return with options for its own data center moratorium, and while more than 70 speakers were registering opposition to data centers at the Oakland City Council — evidence of a co-ordinated East Bay wave rather than three unrelated local decisions.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Loveland CO 12-month data center moratorium (2026)

Loveland, CO · Effective September 15, 2026 · Loveland, Colo. — resolution pausing processing of data center land-use applications for up to 12 months, ratified 7-2 on September 15, 2026

Loveland's City Council agreed not to process any land-use applications for data centers for 12 months — OR LESS, if the council approves new land-use regulations before that period is up. The 7-2 vote on Tuesday night, September 15, 2026 ratified a direction the council had already given staff on September 1: pause consideration of data center applications until land-use codes can be updated to protect the city from the negative impacts of such developments. The self-terminating structure is the feature worth noting. Most moratoriums in this dataset run a fixed term and end either by expiry or by an affirmative extension vote, which creates an incentive problem — the clock runs whether or not the drafting does. Loveland's ends as soon as the replacement regulations are adopted, which removes any reason to let the pause coast to its full term and directly answers the concern a Gage County supervisor raised about longer pauses diluting the pressure to finish. Mayor Pat McFall and Councilmember Geoff Frahm voted against, the mayor saying he opposed the measure based on the guardrails in the proposal. Notably, this is a resolution rather than an ordinance, and it is framed as the council agreeing not to PROCESS applications rather than as a prohibition on development.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Marina CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026)

Marina, CA · Effective September 15, 2026 · Marina, Cal. — 45-day interim urgency ordinance barring acceptance of data center applications, adopted unanimously September 15, 2026

The Marina City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday night, September 15, 2026 to enact a 45-day moratorium on new data centers, giving the city time to create policies and evaluate the potential effects of such facilities. During the moratorium no applications for data centers will be accepted. The council was explicit that the URGENCY ORDINANCE WAS NOT PROMPTED BY ANY CURRENT APPLICATION — it was adopted to prepare for future scenarios. That matters more than it sounds. A moratorium enacted while an application is pending invites a vested-rights fight, and this dataset records several pauses defeated exactly that way, most starkly in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, where a developer's suit forced the city to amend its ordinance to let the project through. Marina faces no such exposure. A resident speaking at the meeting expressed satisfaction with the decision and stressed the importance of having local discussions before higher levels of government intervene — which is the preemption anxiety running underneath a good deal of the local activity in this dataset. Forty-five days is the opening interval of a California interim urgency ordinance, not the likely total: state law lets a council extend it once by ten months and fifteen days and again by a year. The question for Marina, as for every other California city here, is whether it comes back to extend.

Full entry · News report
In effect
West Mahanoy Township PA curative amendment, data centers and solar (2026)

West Mahanoy Township, PA · Effective September 15, 2026 · West Mahanoy Township, Pa. — resolution invoking the curative amendment process and declaring the zoning ordinance invalid as to data centers, solar farms and on-site power generation, adopted September 15, 2026

West Mahanoy Township is pressing pause on potential data center developments for six months, and the way it did so is the interesting part. Supervisors voted UNANIMOUSLY on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to approve a resolution invoking the PENNSYLVANIA CURATIVE AMENDMENT PROCESS for BOTH data centers AND SOLAR FARMS. The resolution declares the township's own law defective: 'The West Mahanoy Township Zoning Ordinance is hereby declared to be INVALID as it relates to the regulation of data centers, solar farms, on-site power generation, and accessory uses related thereto.' Having declared the defect, the township gets the remedy period: 'The township shall not be required to entertain or consider any landowner's curative amendment or proposals for a data center use or solar farm within 180 DAYS.' Solicitor Jim Amato explained why the township looked at its ordinances and moved: it had 'determined that we don't have the protections in place for data centers or solar farms.' And then the sentence that captures the whole Pennsylvania strategy: 'We can't exclude these types of things from co[ming]… But you can control it.' That is the trade the Municipalities Planning Code forces. A Pennsylvania municipality generally may not zone a lawful use out of existence entirely, so an ordinance silent on data centers is not a shield — it is an opening for a developer to bring a substantive validity challenge and have a court, rather than the township, decide what gets built. By conceding the defect first, the township keeps control of the cure. This dataset now records three Pennsylvania municipalities using the same manoeuvre — Falls Township at the moment of declaration, Montgomery Township through to completed regulations, and now West Mahanoy. West Mahanoy is the first to extend it beyond data centers to SOLAR FARMS and ON-SITE POWER GENERATION, which is a meaningful widening: on-site generation is what a large data center brings with it.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Woodburn OR 120-day data center moratorium (2026)

Woodburn, OR · Effective September 14, 2026 · Woodburn, Or. — 120-day moratorium on data center development, adopted unanimously September 14, 2026

The Woodburn City Council unanimously enacted a 120-day moratorium on data center development on Monday, September 14, 2026, preventing the city from considering any new applications while officials analyse the potential impacts on the environment, city regulations and overall quality of life. The stated driver is WATER, not electricity — city officials say Woodburn might not be able to accommodate the large amount of water data centers often require. That is a distinct rationale from most entries in this dataset, where grid capacity and ratepayer cost dominate, and it is the same constraint recorded in the desert-southwest and Great Plains entries. Woodburn has no current or pending data center application. City officials had previously said that California-based Verrus had been exploring building a center within city limits, so the pause is pre-emptive but not speculative — it was adopted against a named prospective developer that has not yet applied, which is the strongest possible position for a moratorium to occupy: early enough to avoid vested-rights problems, late enough to be demonstrably needed.

Full entry · News report
90 more
Bemidji MN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Bemidji, MN · In effect
Lower Mount Bethel Township PA data center ordinance (2026) · Lower Mount Bethel Township, PA · In effect
Marysville KS 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Marysville, KS · In effect
Dixfield ME 180-day data center moratorium, town meeting vote (2026) · Dixfield, ME · In effect
Warren OH one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Warren, OH · In effect
Clearfield UT data center moratorium (2026) · Clearfield, UT · In effect
Eureka CA data center moratorium and 20,000 sq ft cap direction (2026) · Eureka, CA · In effect
Miamisburg OH nine-month data center moratorium (2026) · Miamisburg, OH · In effect
Salida CO 12-month data center moratorium Ord. 2026-19 · Salida, CO · In effect
Cambridge MN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Cambridge, MN · In effect
Montgomery Township PA data center curative regulations (2026) · Montgomery Township, PA · In effect
Murray KY data center regulations (2026) · Murray, KY · In effect
Elkhart IN data center and battery storage moratorium (2026) · Elkhart, IN · In effect
Ligonier Township PA data center zoning regulations (2026) · Ligonier Township, PA · In effect
Camden NY local data center moratorium (2026) · Camden, NY · In effect
Fairfield IA data center development pause ordinance (2026) · Fairfield, IA · In effect
Patterson CA data center moratorium extension Ord. 890 (2026) · Patterson, CA · In effect
Virginia Beach 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Virginia Beach, VA · In effect
Chesapeake VA data center zoning ordinance (2026) · Chesapeake, VA · In effect
Norristown PA data center ordinance (2026) · Norristown, PA · In effect
Marshall MI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Marshall, MI · In effect
Renton WA one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Renton, WA · In effect
Bellevue WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Bellevue, WI · In effect
Eastport ME 180-day underwater data center moratorium (2026) · Eastport, ME · In effect
Commerce CA 45-day data center urgency ordinance (2026) · Commerce, CA · Expired
Chicago data center executive order (2026) · Chicago, IL · In effect
Pinellas Park FL one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Pinellas Park, FL · In effect
Pere Marquette Township MI data center moratorium (2026) · Pere Marquette Township, MI · In effect
Nicholasville KY six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Nicholasville, KY · In effect
Falls Township PA curative amendment on data centers (2026) · Falls Township, PA · In effect
Town of Tonawanda NY data center moratorium LL 2-2026 · Town of Tonawanda, NY · In effect
Corunna MI data center zoning ordinance (2026) · Corunna, MI · In effect
Farmville NC 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Farmville, NC · In effect
Athens OH data center moratorium Ord. 70-26 (2026) · Athens, OH · In effect
Town of Janesville WI data center moratorium (2026) · Town of Janesville, WI · In effect
Auburn NY one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Auburn, NY · In effect
Amherst OH Nordson campus data center variance denial (2026) · Amherst, OH · In effect
Liu v. Willow Bridge/RealPage (Philadelphia) · Philadelphia, PA · Blocked / in litigation
Clearcreek Township OH one-year data center permit moratorium (2026) · Clearcreek Township, OH · In effect
Otsego MN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Otsego, MN · In effect
Canton OH data center zoning chapter (2026) · Canton, OH · In effect
North Richland Hills TX data center SUP regulations (2026) · North Richland Hills, TX · In effect
Westerly RI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Westerly, RI · In effect
Clayton OH 365-day data center moratorium (2026) · Clayton, OH · In effect
Panama City and Bay County FL data center moratoria (2026) · Panama City, FL · In effect
Chewelah WA emergency data center moratorium (2026) · Chewelah, WA · In effect
Holly Springs NC 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Holly Springs, NC · In effect
Broken Arrow OK data center moratorium (2026) · Broken Arrow, OK · In effect
Grove City OH 1-year data center moratorium (2026) · Grove City, OH · In effect
Santa Ana CA ban on algorithmic rent-setting software (anticompetitive devices) · Santa Ana, CA · In effect
Hoboken Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban · Hoboken, NJ · In effect
Philadelphia Bill 240823 — Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban · Philadelphia, PA · In effect
SF delivery-robot permit (2017) · San Francisco · In effect
NYC AI rental listing disclosure proposal (Mamdani, 2026) · New York City, NY · Proposed / pending
Port Angeles WA six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Port Angeles, WA · In effect
Portland OR data center NDA resolution (2026) · Portland, OR · In effect
Forest Park GA 90-day data center moratorium (2026) · Forest Park, GA · In effect
Rockford IL six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Rockford, IL · In effect
Cle Elum WA emergency data center moratorium (2026) · Cle Elum, WA · In effect
Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithm · Portland, OR · In effect
Santa Monica Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban · Santa Monica, CA · In effect
Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7. · Seattle, WA · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms · Providence, RI · In effect
Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software · Jersey City, NJ · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting device · Berkeley, CA · Proposed / pending
Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to · San Francisco, CA · In effect
NYC LL 60 (delivery robots) · New York City · In effect
Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price- · Bellingham · Proposed / pending
Aurora CO resolution directing data center regulations, moratorium rejected (2026) · Aurora, CO · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance · Minneapolis, MN · Proposed / pending
Cambridge MA algorithmic rent-setting ban (policy order, Jun. 2026) · Cambridge, MA · Proposed / pending
Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight · New York City · Proposed / pending
Ban biometric recognition in public accommodations (Ban The Scan) · New York City · Proposed / pending
Atlanta City Council resolution accepting AI Commission recommendations · Atlanta · Status unknown
Town of Beloit WI data center moratorium resolution (2026) · Town of Beloit, WI · Proposed / pending
Poway CA AI data center ban ordinance, first reading (2026) · Poway, CA · Proposed / pending
Aurora CO evaporative cooling ban ordinance, first reading (2026) · Aurora, CO · Proposed / pending
Hopkinsville KY proposed data center zoning amendment (2026) · Hopkinsville, KY · Proposed / pending
Minneapolis robotaxi safety-monitor ordinance (proposed 2026) · Minneapolis, MN · Proposed / pending
Kirksville MO proposed data center zoning ordinance (2026) · Kirksville, MO · Proposed / pending
Newark NJ proposed one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Newark, NJ · Proposed / pending
Portland OR COST surveillance pricing ordinance (proposed 2026) · Portland, OR · Proposed / pending
Memphis TN data center moratorium Ord. 5982 (pending final reading) · Memphis, TN · Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B24-0558) · Washington, DC · Proposed / pending
NYC Int 1003-2024 · New York, NY · Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B25-0114) · Washington, DC · Proposed / pending
Baltimore FR Ban (Expired) · Baltimore, MD · Expired
Brooks v. Wilmington OH emergency rezoning challenge (2026) · Wilmington, OH · Blocked / in litigation
Lowell MA Markley data center diesel generator injunction (2026) · Lowell, MA · Blocked / in litigation
DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted) · Washington, DC · Expired

All topics · Full directory · Submit a correction