Home › Topics › facial recognition
U.S. AI Laws: facial recognition
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 131 U.S. AI rules on facial recognition across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal facial recognition rules (12)
-
In effect
FTC v. Rite Aid
FTC · Effective 2023-12-19 · FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05023 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2023)
The FTC banned Rite Aid from using facial-recognition technology in its stores for five years after finding the pharmacy chain's FRT system falsely tagged customers — disproportionately women and people of color — as shoplifters, leading to wrongful detentions and humiliations.
-
In effect
Patel v. Facebook (BIPA)
N.D. Cal. · Effective 2021-02-26 · In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig., No. 3:15-cv-03747 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021); 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019)
The largest biometric-privacy settlement in U.S. history at the time — $650 million paid by Facebook to roughly 1.6 million Illinois users whose facial templates were extracted by the 'Tag Suggestions' feature without BIPA consent. Each class member received about $400.
-
In effect
FTC v. IntelliVision
FTC · Effective 2024-12-19 · In re IntelliVision Techs. Corp., FTC No. C-4813 (Dec. 19, 2024)
The FTC settled with IntelliVision in December 2024, alleging the company falsely claimed its facial-recognition product had 'zero gender or racial bias' without testing-data to support that — and that its accuracy claims were unsubstantiated. Builds on the FTC's Rite Aid theory.
-
In effect
In re Clearview AI Class Settlement
N.D. Ill. · Effective 2024-06-21 · In re Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL 2967, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill.)
A nationwide BIPA class action against Clearview AI settled in 2024 on an unusual basis: rather than cash, class members receive a 23 percent equity interest in Clearview, valued by plaintiffs at up to $51 million depending on company valuation. The arrangement reflected Clearview's inability to pay cash damages of the magnitude BIPA would require.
-
In effect
FTC v. Amazon (Ring)
FTC · Effective 2023-07-31 · Federal Trade Commission v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C. 2023)
The FTC settled with Amazon's Ring subsidiary for $5.8M in 2023 over privacy and security failures — including allowing employees and contractors to view customer videos without consent and failing to prevent stalkers from compromising accounts. The settlement restricts Ring's use of customer videos for product / AI development.
-
In effect
In re Google Photos BIPA
Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. · Effective 2022-09-28 · Rivera v. Google LLC, No. 2019-CH-00990 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.)
Illinois Google Photos users won a $100 million settlement in 2022 over allegations Google extracted face templates from uploaded photos without BIPA consent. Each claimant was estimated to receive between $200 and $400.
-
In effect
Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En
United States · Effective 2025-12-26 · Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States
This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.
-
In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat
United States · Effective 2023-01-01 · TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)
TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.
-
In effect
Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I
United States · Effective 2022-06-01 · Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports
CBP completed nationwide deployment of Simplified Arrival, which photographs international arrivals at airport inspection points and matches faces against government passport/visa galleries, with opt-out for U.S. citizens.
-
In effect
CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
United States · Effective 2020-01-01 · CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
CBP runs biometric facial comparison at roughly 11 U.S. cruise seaports (including Miami and Port Everglades), scanning disembarking passengers' faces against passport/visa photos with a U.S.-citizen opt-out.
-
Proposed / pending
Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)
United States · Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691)
This pending bipartisan Senate bill would guarantee travelers the right to opt out of TSA facial recognition at airports, bar worse treatment for opting out, and limit retention and secondary use of face data.
-
Expired
Federal facial recognition moratorium (died)
United States · S. 4084 (2020) / S. 2052 (2021) / S. 681 (2023) — never marked up
Sens. Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, and Wyden and Reps. Jayapal, Pressley, and Tlaib first introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act on June 25, 2020 — and reintroduced it in 2021 and 2023. It would have banned all federal agency use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies, and conditioned federal grants on state/local moratoriums. Never received committee action across three congresses.
State facial recognition rules (22)
-
In effect
Texas CUBI (2009)
TX · Effective 2009-09-01 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §503.001 (2009)
Enacted in 2009, the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) was the second state biometric privacy law in the country (after Illinois BIPA). It requires consent before commercial biometric capture and caps damages at $25,000 per violation. AG Paxton used CUBI to secure a $1.4B Meta settlement (2024) and $1.375B Google settlement (2025) — making it the most-recovered state biometric statute.
-
In effect
IL BIPA (2008, first-in-nation biometric law)
IL · Effective 2008-10-03 · 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 over $1.5B in class-action settlements, including the $650M Facebook face-tagging settlement (2021) and the $725M TikTok settlement (2021). 2024 amendment (P.A. 103-0769) limited claims to one accrual per person per collection method. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
BIPA
Illinois · Effective 2008-10-03 · 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
The strongest US biometric privacy law: companies must get written consent before collecting fingerprints, face scans, voiceprints, or other biometrics, publish retention/destruction policies, and cannot sell biometric data. Individuals can sue directly and recover $1,000–$5,000 per violation, which has produced major settlements against facial recognition and AI companies.
-
In effect
Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)
Virginia · Effective 2026-07-01 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (2026), effective July 1, 2026
Virginia Code § 15.2-1723.2, effective July 1, 2026, imposes statewide binding requirements on how local law enforcement agencies in Virginia may use facial recognition technology. Agencies wishing to use facial recognition must publicly post a policy meeting or exceeding the State Police model, publish annual use reports by April 1 each year, and give 30 days written notice to their governing body before procuring the technology. The law bans real-time tracking of identified individuals in public spaces and prohibits creating a live-video database using facial recognition. All searches must be logged and violations by operators constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. The law applies to all Virginia localities, including Northern Virginia regional law enforcement systems.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg — FR wrongful arrest (2026)
Arizona · Effective 2026-06-11 · Lorenzano-Nunez v. Roestenberg, No. 2:26-cv-04153 (D. Ariz. filed June 11, 2026)
Javier Lorenzano-Nunez sued Phoenix cold-case detective Dominick Roestenberg, the City of Phoenix, and two further individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on 2026-06-11 in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Press accounts state he was arrested in 2024 for a 1998 Phoenix killing after investigators used facial recognition to identify him, spent roughly a year in jail, and had all charges dismissed on 2025-08-05 after DNA and fingerprint evidence excluded him, and that the suit alleges police knew his fingerprints did not match and that a detective misled the grand jury. The docket records the cause as 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, Nature of Suit 550.
-
In effect
ME LD 1585 (FR limitation)
ME · Effective 2021-10-01 · P.L. 2021 ch. 394 (Me. LD 1585)
Maine LD 1585 is the strictest U.S. state law on government face surveillance — limits use to serious crime investigation via state agency conduit, with logging and a private right of action.
-
In effect
WA SB 6280 (2020, first-in-nation state FR-government law)
WA · Effective 2021-07-01 · RCW Ch. 43.386 (SB 6280, 2020)
Washington SB 6280 (signed March 31, 2020) was the first U.S. state law expressly regulating state and local government use of facial recognition. It requires accountability reports, public notice, warrant requirements for ongoing surveillance, and independent testing for accuracy and bias. Codified at RCW Ch. 43.386. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
VT S.124 (statewide FR moratorium)
VT · Effective 2020-10-07 · 2020 Vt. Acts & Res. No. 166 §14
Vermont S.124 bars Vermont law enforcement from acquiring or using facial-recognition technology absent express legislative authorization — the nation's strongest statewide ban.
-
In effect
Montana HB 178 (limits on government AI use)
Montana · Effective 2025-10-01 · Mont. HB 178 (2025) (Ch. 427); codified in Title 2, MCA
Montana restricts how state and local government use AI. A government entity or state officer may not use an AI system to manipulate a person or group, to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact, for a malicious purpose, or to surveil public spaces (with narrow exceptions). Government must disclose AI-produced material that no qualified human reviewed and disclose public-facing AI interfaces. Any AI recommendation or decision that could affect a person's rights, duties, or privileges must be reviewed by a qualified human who can reject or change it.
-
In effect
Texas v. Google
TX · Effective 2025-05-09 · Texas v. Google — $1.375B Biometric and Location Data Settlement (2025-05-09)
Paxton resolved 2022 claims that Google unlawfully captured voiceprints and face geometry and tracked location/Incognito searches without consent, violating Texas CUBI and DTPA. Largest single-state privacy recovery from Google.
-
In effect
Texas v. Google ($1.375B)
TX · Effective 2025-05-09 · State of Texas v. Google LLC (Harrison Cty., Tex., May 9, 2025)
Texas AG Ken Paxton secured a $1.375 billion settlement from Google in May 2025 over voiceprint, faceprint, and Incognito-mode tracking claims under the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Largest single-state privacy recovery against a tech company.
-
In effect
New Hampshire HB 1688 (state-agency AI limits)
New Hampshire · Effective 2024-07-01 · N.H. HB 1688 (2024), effective July 1, 2024
New Hampshire set rules for how state agencies may use artificial intelligence. Agencies may not use AI to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination, and they may not use real-time or remote biometric identification such as facial recognition to surveil public spaces — except by law enforcement acting under a warrant. Agencies also may not use deepfakes for deceptive or malicious purposes. When an AI recommendation cannot be reversed once carried out, a qualified human must review it first, AI-generated content must be disclosed, and the public must be told when they are interacting with AI.
-
In effect
USVI Act 8797 (RTCC)
US Virgin Islands · Effective 2023-12-19 · V.I. Act No. 8797 (2023); 3 V.I.C. § 263(a)
USVI Act 8797 establishes a centralized Real-Time Crime Center in the VI Police Department. Statutorily authorizes gunshot detection, a surveillance camera network, automated license plate readers, and fingerprint biometrics — putting AI-adjacent surveillance tech on a legal footing rather than restricting it. $2.5M appropriated.
-
In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition
New York State Education Department · Effective 2023-09-27 · Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition Technology in Schools
NYSED Commissioner Betty Rosa issued a statewide determination prohibiting all New York public and nonpublic schools from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, while leaving other biometric tools to local discretion subject to privacy and civil-rights review.
-
In effect
New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on
New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) · Effective 2023-09-01 · New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on facial recognition purchase/use)
Effective September 2023 following the NYSED Commissioner determination, all New York schools are prohibited from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, making NY the first state with such a comprehensive school ban.
-
In effect
ACLU v. Clearview AI
IL · Effective 2022-05-09 · ACLU v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 2020-CH-04353 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.)
Clearview AI, which scraped billions of online photos to build a face-search engine sold to police, agreed to a nationwide consent order in May 2022. Clearview is permanently barred from selling its faceprint database to most private U.S. businesses, with additional Illinois-specific restrictions on government contracts.
-
In effect
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of
Vermont · Effective 2020-03-10 · Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law
The Vermont Attorney General sued Clearview AI under the Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law for scraping Vermonters' photos and using facial-recognition AI to map faces and sell access without consent.
-
In effect
AI Video Interview Act
Illinois · Effective 2020-01-01 · 820 ILCS 42/1 et seq.
Employers using AI to analyze video interviews of Illinois job applicants must tell applicants beforehand, explain how the AI works, get consent, limit video sharing, and delete videos on request within 30 days. Employers relying solely on AI screening must report applicant demographic data to the state.
-
Expired
Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
The Port Authority of NY & NJ deployed facial-recognition eGates at Newark Liberty that let enrolled travelers pass TSA checkpoints by matching a live facial scan against their identity document instead of a manual ID check.
-
Expired
Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Luf
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport, Terminal B) · Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Lufthansa/CBP)
The Port Authority piloted a biometric self-boarding e-gate at Newark Gate 62 that captured passengers' faces and verified them against CBP's passport database to board without documents, with scans deleted within 12 hours.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)
The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.
-
Repealed / replaced
VA SB 1392 / HB 2031 (2021 FR moratorium, narrowed 2022)
VA · Effective 2021-07-01 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (former, HB 2031 / SB 1392 2021) — substantially superseded by HB 1352 / SB 741 (2022)
Virginia's 2021 facial recognition moratorium (HB 2031, with Sen. Boysko's SB 1392 companion) prohibited local law enforcement use of facial recognition without legislative authorization. It was rolled back in 2022 by HB 1352 / SB 741 which authorized use with constraints — making the 2021 moratorium one of the shortest-lived state AI restrictions on record.
County facial recognition rules (17)
-
In effect
Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention
Riverside County, CA · Effective 2025-07-22 · RCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)
Riverside County Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR policy aligning with California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.: 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose for queries, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors.
-
In effect
San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy
San Mateo County, CA · Effective 2025-06-10 · San Mateo County Manager policy (2025) (2025-06-10)
San Mateo County adopted AI use and governance policy: requires impact assessment before deployment of AI/ADS in resident-facing services, bans facial-recognition use by county departments without Board authorization, requires inventory of AI tools, and mandates annual public reporting.
-
In effect
Ventura County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy
Ventura County, CA · Effective 2025-05-20 · VCSO ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-05-20)
Ventura County Sheriff's Office adopted ALPR policy with 90-day retention, documented investigative purpose required for queries, audit logging, and prohibition on sharing data with commercial brokers, per California Civil Code §1798.90.5.
-
In effect
Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2025-04-30 · Montgomery County Executive Order 2-25 (AI) (2025-04-30)
Montgomery County Executive Order establishing AI governance framework: requires AI inventory, impact assessment before deployment in resident-facing services, mandatory human review of consequential decisions, prohibition on facial-recognition use by county departments without Council authorization, and annual public reporting.
-
In effect
Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy
Orange County, CA · Effective 2025-04-15 · OCSD ALPR Policy (2025) (2025-04-15)
Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Department adopted ALPR governance policy with 90-day retention cap, documented investigative purpose requirement, audit logging, and quarterly reporting to the Board of Supervisors per California Civil Code §1798.90.5 et seq.
-
In effect
Montgomery County MD Police Directive FC 0627
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2024-10-01 · MCPD Directive FC 0627 (Use of Facial Recognition Technology), posted 2024-10-01
Montgomery County Police Department Function Code 0627 — 'Use of Facial Recognition Technology' — is the operational directive governing MCPD's use of facial recognition. The directive was published October 1, 2024 on the official MCPD policy library. It is paired with Council Bill 33-22 (adopted Feb. 13, 2023) at the legislative level. Maryland's statewide HB 338/SB 182 (signed May 16, 2024) adds reasonable-suspicion-of-qualifying-offense and no-sole-basis-for-arrest constraints that apply to all state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies including MCPD.
-
In effect
Orleans Parish / New Orleans Facial Recognition Restrictions
Orleans Parish County, LA · Effective 2024-07-25 · New Orleans City Council Ordinance (Orleans Parish coterminous) (2024-07-25)
Orleans Parish (coterminous with New Orleans) restricts NOPD's use of facial-recognition technology to investigations of specific violent crimes with supervisory approval, prohibits use as sole basis for arrest, and requires reporting to City Council.
-
In effect
Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader
Arlington County, VA · Effective 2024-04-01 · ACPD General Order 605 (ALPR policy) (2024-04-01)
Arlington County Police Department adopted formal ALPR governance policy with 30-day data retention limit, restricted access, audit trails, and required reasonable-suspicion or investigative purpose for queries; aligns with Virginia Code §15.2-1723.1.
-
In effect
King County FR Ban
King County, WA · King County, Wash., Ordinance 19296 (June 1, 2021)
King County (the Seattle area) was the first US county to ban its government, including the Sheriff's Office, from using facial recognition technology. The unanimous 2021 ordinance also bars county agencies from getting facial recognition information through third parties. Remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance
Santa Clara County, CA · Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)
Santa Clara County passed the nation's first county-level surveillance oversight law in 2016. County departments must get Board of Supervisors approval, publish a surveillance use policy, and file an impact report before acquiring surveillance technology, plus annual reports afterward. Still actively administered by the County Privacy Office.
-
In effect
Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2023-11-20 · Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Montgomery County Police launched a DFR program on November 20, 2023, limited to responding to calls for service, with no proactive surveillance, audio recording, or facial recognition and a warrant requirement for private areas.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use
King County, WA · Effective 2021-06-01 · Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use of facial recognition technology
King County became the first U.S. county to ban its administrative agencies and the Sheriff's Office from using facial recognition technology, with a narrow exception for the National Child Search Assistance Act.
-
In effect
King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202
King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) · Effective 2021-06-01 · King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 2021)
King County (which operates Sea-Tac's environs and the Sheriff's Office) became the first U.S. county to ban all county-agency use of facial recognition, though federal CBP use at Sea-Tac is unaffected.
-
In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · Effective 2020-03-23 · Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's Cal-ID biometric network governs use of its facial recognition system, restricting acceptable search reasons, requiring training, data-quality assurance, retention/purging rules, and oversight for participating law-enforcement agencies.
-
In effect
Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detro
Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport) · Effective 2018-07-01 · Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detroit Metro Airport
Delta, the Wayne County Airport Authority and CBP deployed facial-recognition boarding at Detroit Metro, letting international passengers board by facial scan matched to CBP's photo gallery.
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief
Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract
The Cook County Sheriff's Office proposed a $1.12M three-year BriefCam contract to add AI video analytics, facial recognition, and object identification across Cook County Jail's video, drawing opposition from 80 community groups.
-
Proposed / pending
Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni
Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) · Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recognition pilot contract
The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office asked the County Commission to approve a $17,100 one-year Clearview AI facial recognition pilot, but commissioners tabled it and required the office to first present a use policy and vet vendor data-sharing (including with ICE).
City / local facial recognition rules (80)
-
In effect
NYC Biometric Identifier Law (LL3)
New York City, NY · Effective 2021-07-09 · NYC Admin. Code §§ 22-1201–22-1205 (Local Law 3 of 2021)
NYC retail stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues that collect customers' biometric data (face scans, fingerprints, iris scans, voiceprints) must post clear signs at entrances disclosing it. Selling or otherwise profiting from customers' biometric data is flatly banned. Customers can sue: $500 per signage or negligent-sale violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless sale, plus attorneys' fees.
-
In effect
Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)
Portland, OR · Effective 2021-01-01 · Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 (private-sector); Council Action Sept. 9, 2020
On September 9, 2020, Portland, Oregon became the first U.S. city to ban both government AND private-sector use of facial recognition in places of public accommodation. The private-sector ban — codified at Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 — included a private right of action and remains the broadest municipal FR ban in the United States.
-
In effect
Portland Private-Sector FR Ban
Portland, OR · Effective 2021-01-01 · Portland, Or., City Code ch. 34.10 (Ordinance 190114, 2020)
Portland is the first US city to ban private businesses from using facial recognition in places of public accommodation such as stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues. People can sue violators for damages. The ban remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
NY School FR Moratorium (Rochester effects)
Rochester, NY · Effective 2020-12-22 · Part BB of ch. 56 of Laws of 2020; N.Y. Educ. Law 2-d-1
New York State law triggered by Lockport City SD's facial recognition deployment bars schools statewide — including Rochester-area districts — from acquiring or using biometric identifying technology without state authorization.
-
In effect
Newark Police FR Prohibition
Newark, NJ · Effective 2020-01-27 · NJ AG informal email moratorium (January 27, 2020); no formal directive number issued; no documented Newark PD formal adopting policy
New Jersey Attorney General directive (followed by Newark PD) bars all New Jersey law-enforcement agencies — including Newark — from using Clearview AI facial recognition.
-
In effect
Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2019-11-14 · Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 (Ord. 7,676-N.S., 2019)
On October 15, 2019, Berkeley enacted Ordinance 7,676-N.S., prohibiting the City Manager and any city agent from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using facial recognition technology — making Berkeley the fourth U.S. city to ban government FR. Codified at Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
Oakland Government FR Ban (2019)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-08-15 · Oakland Mun. Code Ch. 9.64 (2019, expanded 2020)
On July 16, 2019, Oakland became the third U.S. city (after San Francisco and Somerville, MA) to ban government use of facial recognition. Council expanded the ban in December 2020 to also cover predictive policing and voice/gait biometric surveillance — the first U.S. city to do so. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-07-15 · S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B
San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban its own government — including police — from using facial recognition technology. The Board of Supervisors gave final passage 10-1 on June 4, 2019; the ordinance became law without the mayor's signature on June 14, 2019 and took effect July 15, 2019, codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B. It also requires Board approval and public use policies before city departments acquire any other surveillance technology. Still in effect 2026 and the template for municipal facial-recognition bans nationwide.
-
In effect
Somerville Face Surveillance Ban (2019, first East Coast)
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Somerville, Mass., Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance (June 27, 2019)
On June 27, 2019, Somerville, MA became the first East Coast city — and the second U.S. city overall after San Francisco — to ban its government from using face surveillance technology. Unanimous council vote. Catalyzed a Massachusetts municipal FR ban wave including Brookline, Cambridge, Northampton, and Springfield. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Oakland, CA · Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64
Oakland requires City Council approval and public use policies before city agencies acquire any surveillance technology, and bans city use of facial recognition. In December 2020 the city added first-in-the-nation bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (such as voice and gait recognition). Remains in effect, overseen by Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.
-
In effect
Portland (Maine) Facial Surveillance Ban
Portland, ME · Portland, Me., facial surveillance ban (Aug. 2020), as amended by Question B (Nov. 2020)
Portland, Maine's City Council banned city employees, including police, from using facial surveillance in August 2020, and voters strengthened the ban that November by passing Question B, which lets people sue the city for violations. Because it was enacted by referendum, the council could not amend it for five years. Remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
DPD FR Policy (2023 update)
Detroit, MI · Effective 2024-05-30 · DPD Directive 307.5 (2023, as updated)
Updated Detroit Police Department policy directive on facial recognition technology issued after the Robert Williams settlement, restricting FR matches as the sole basis for arrest and requiring corroborating evidence and supervisory review.
-
In effect
Durham PD FR Restriction
Durham, NC · Effective 2024-03-01 · Durham PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024)
Durham Police Department general order restricting facial recognition use to case-tied investigations with supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
Indianapolis Metro PD FR Prohibition
Indianapolis, IN · Effective 2023-04-01 · IMPD Gen. Order 2944094, Biometric Technology / Facial Recognition (available at public.powerdms.com/INDYMETRO/documents/2944094)
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department general order prohibiting use of facial recognition technology by IMPD personnel without express written authorization and case predicate.
-
In effect
San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance
San Diego, CA · Effective 2022-08-23 · San Diego Mun. Code ch. 2, art. 10, div. 41 (Ord. O-21492, O-21493) (2022)
San Diego ordinance requiring City Council approval and a published use policy for any city surveillance technology, including the Smart Streetlights and ALPR programs, with a Privacy Advisory Board overseeing impact reports.
-
In effect
St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance
St. Louis, MO · Effective 2022-04-29 · Ord. 71842 (BB 185) (2022-04-29)
24th U.S. CCOPS law; requires Board of Aldermen approval and impact reports for any city surveillance technology including face-recognition, ALPRs, predictive policing.
-
In effect
Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology
Worcester, MA · Effective 2021-12-14 · Worcester Ord. (Dec. 2021) (2021-12-14)
Eighth MA municipality to ban government use of face surveillance; bars city officials from obtaining, retaining, requesting, or using FR systems.
-
In effect
Bellingham Initiative 2
Bellingham, WA · Effective 2021-11-02 · Bellingham Initiative 2 (2021) (2021-11-02)
Voter-approved (57%) ban on city acquisition or use of face-recognition and predictive-policing technologies.
-
In effect
MA Police Reform FR Restriction (Worcester)
Worcester, MA · Effective 2020-12-31 · Mass. Gen. Laws c. 6, secs. 219-220 (Ch. 253 of 2020)
Massachusetts police-reform law (Ch. 253 of 2020) limits municipal police departments — including Worcester — to facial recognition queries run only by RMV, MSP, or FBI via written request and supervisory approval.
-
In effect
Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies
Pittsburgh, PA · Effective 2020-09-22 · Pittsburgh File 2020-0647 (2020-09-22)
Requires council approval before city or police use of face-recognition or predictive-policing tools (state JNET excluded).
-
In effect
Portland City-Government FR Ban
Portland, OR · Effective 2020-09-09 · Portland, Or., city-bureau face recognition ban ordinance (Sept. 9, 2020)
Portland bans all city bureaus, including the Portland Police Bureau, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology. Adopted the same day as the separate private-sector ban; remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition
Jackson, MS · Effective 2020-08-18 · Jackson Ord. (Aug. 2020) (2020-08-18)
Bars Jackson PD and city agencies from acquiring or using biometric face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Easthampton Face Surveillance Ban
Easthampton, MA · Effective 2020-07-01 · Easthampton Ord. (2020) (2020-07-01)
Unanimous council ordinance prohibiting city use of face-surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Boston Face Surveillance Ban
Boston, MA · Effective 2020-06-24 · Boston, Mass., Code of Ordinances 16-62 (2020)
Boston bans all city departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems. City officials also may not ask third parties or other agencies to run facial recognition searches on their behalf.
-
In effect
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)
First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.
-
In effect
Springfield Face Surveillance Ban / Moratorium
Springfield, MA · Effective 2020-05-04 · Springfield Ord. (2020) (2020-05-04)
Bans Springfield police and city agencies from using face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Northampton Face Surveillance Ban
Northampton, MA · Effective 2019-12-19 · Ord. 19.176 (2019-12-19)
Prohibits Northampton from collecting or using biometric face-surveillance information.
-
In effect
Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance
Alameda, CA · Effective 2019-12-17 · Ord. 3247 (2019-12-17)
Council adopted a surveillance-oversight ordinance with an explicit prohibition on city use of face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Orlando Ends Rekognition Pilot
Orlando, FL · Effective 2019-07-18 · City of Orlando memo to City Council, July 18, 2019
City of Orlando and Orlando Police Department formally ended their pilot of Amazon Rekognition real-time facial recognition in 2018 after public backlash; OPD has not redeployed live FR since.
-
In effect
Tacoma Surveillance Ordinance
Tacoma, WA · Effective 2017-09-12 · Tacoma Mun. Code ch. 1.42 (Ord. 28427) (2017)
Tacoma ordinance requiring City Council approval and a public use policy before any city department acquires or uses surveillance equipment.
-
In effect
Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Cambridge, MA · Cambridge, Mass., Mun. Code ch. 2.128, FR ban amendment (Jan. 13, 2020)
Cambridge requires City Council approval and impact reports before city departments use surveillance technology, and a unanimous January 2020 amendment banned city use of face surveillance. Surveillance impact reports were still being filed with the council in 2024–2025.
-
In effect
Brookline Face Surveillance Ban
Brookline, MA · Town of Brookline, Mass., General By-Laws (Warrant Art. 25, 2019)
Brookline's Town Meeting voted 179–8 in December 2019 to ban town government use of face surveillance, making it the fifth US municipality to do so. The by-law bars town departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems.
-
In effect
Minneapolis FR Ban
Minneapolis, MN · Minneapolis, Minn., FR Ban Ordinance (Feb. 12, 2021)
Minneapolis bans city departments, including the police department, from procuring facial recognition technology or using data derived from it, with a council-approved exceptions process and annual reporting. No repeal or weakening amendment was found — the ordinance appears to remain in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Madison Face Surveillance Ban
Madison, WI · Madison, Wis., Gen. Ordinances §§ 23.63–23.64
Madison bans city agencies, including police, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology, with narrow exceptions for identifying victims of human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, and missing children. Works alongside the city's surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual compliance reports.
-
In effect
Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency)
Bristol, VA · Effective 2026-06-01 · Bristol VA PD General Order 9-09, Facial Recognition Technology (eff. June 1, 2026); Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (eff. July 1, 2026); Clearview AI via LexisNexis
The Bristol, Virginia Police Department launched a facial recognition technology (FRT) program on June 1, 2026, governed by a 27-page General Order 9-09. Bristol PD is the first known local law-enforcement agency in Virginia to adopt FRT following the state's shift from an effective ban to an authorization-with-safeguards regime under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2. The program uses Clearview AI, accessed through LexisNexis. Bristol PD publicly posts its facial recognition activity record at bristolva.gov as required by state law. Under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2, local agencies that use FR must publish a policy, publish an annual report by April 1 each year, maintain confidentiality of FR data, and restrict access to warrant-authorized queries. The DCJS reported that NO Virginia local law-enforcement agencies used FR in 2023 or 2024 (prior to the July 1, 2026 authorization change).
-
In effect
Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr
Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · Effective 2026-05-22 · Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Program
Metro Nashville Police runs a DFR trial using three Skydio drones dispatched only to specific emergency calls, with no facial recognition or routine patrol and non-evidentiary footage deleted after 7 days.
-
In effect
Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Tampa, FL · Effective 2026-03-01 · Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Tampa PD operates a Skydio-based DFR pilot in the Ybor and Downtown areas governed by Florida Statute 934.50, prohibiting facial recognition, weaponization, and warrantless surveillance of private areas.
-
In effect
Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia
Milwaukee, WI · Effective 2026-02-06 · Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facial recognition technology
After sustained public opposition, the Milwaukee Police Department announced it would not use or acquire facial recognition technology pending a formal policy, a moratorium the Common Council can modify or reject.
-
In effect
Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition con
Oklahoma City, OK · Effective 2025-07-15 · Oklahoma City Council approves police facial-recognition contract
The Oklahoma City Council voted 7-2 on July 15, 2025 to approve integrating facial-recognition technology into the police department despite privacy objections.
-
In effect
Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5
Detroit, MI · Effective 2024-07-15 · Detroit Police Dep't Directive 307.5 (rev. June 28, 2024)
After three wrongful arrests of Black men from faulty facial recognition matches, Detroit settled a lawsuit and updated its policy: police cannot make an arrest based solely on a facial recognition match and must corroborate with independent evidence.
-
In effect
Richmond VA PD FR Policy
Richmond, VA · Effective 2024-07-01 · Richmond PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024); Va. Code 15.2-1723.2
Richmond Police Department general order on facial recognition technology required under Virginia state law (Va. Code 15.2-1723.2), restricting use to authorized purposes and case-tied queries.
-
In effect
Miami PD FR Policy
Miami, FL · Effective 2024-06-01 · Miami PD Departmental Order 16, Chapter 4, Facial Recognition Technology (effective 08/21/2020)
Miami Police Department written policy (Departmental Order 16, Ch. 4, effective 2020) on facial recognition technology: prohibits a facial recognition result alone from constituting probable cause for arrest; limits use to authorized Real Time Crime Center personnel; permits use for criminal investigations, internal affairs investigations, identifying incapacitated or unidentified deceased persons, and lawfully detained persons unable to identify themselves; prohibits real-time monitoring and use for surveillance based on protected characteristics.
-
In effect
Virginia Beach PD FR Policy
Virginia Beach, VA · Effective 2024-06-01 · Virginia Beach PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition (2024); Va. Code 15.2-1723.2
Virginia Beach Police Department general order on facial recognition operationalizing Virginia Code 15.2-1723.2 limits.
-
In effect
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · Effective 2024-06-01 · MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
The DC Metropolitan Police Department launched its UAS program in June 2024 under General Order 803.09, prohibiting facial recognition and weaponization and barring targeting based on protected characteristics.
-
In effect
Las Vegas Metro PD FR Policy
Las Vegas, NV · Effective 2024-05-01 · LVMPD Department Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring case predicate, supervisory approval, and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
Buffalo PD FR Policy
Buffalo, NY · Effective 2024-04-01 · Buffalo PD Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Buffalo Police Department policy on facial recognition use, requiring case predicate and supervisory approval, treating matches as investigative leads.
-
In effect
Boise PD FR Policy
Boise, ID · Effective 2024-04-01 · Boise PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Boise Police Department written policy on facial recognition technology with supervisory approval, case predicate, and investigative-lead-only rules.
-
In effect
Fresno PD FR Policy
Fresno, CA · Effective 2024-04-01 · Fresno PD Policy Manual, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
Fresno Police Department policy on facial recognition technology requiring supervisory approval and treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
New Haven PD FR Policy
New Haven, CT · Effective 2024-04-01 · New Haven PD Gen. Order, Facial Recognition Technology (2024)
New Haven Police Department general order on facial recognition technology requiring case predicate and supervisory approval, treating matches as investigative leads only.
-
In effect
SPD FR Policy
Seattle, WA · Effective 2023-07-01 · Seattle Police Manual §12.045 (2023)
Seattle Police Department Manual policy generally prohibiting SPD officers from using facial recognition technology, with no department-issued FR tools and a ban on requesting third-party FR queries.
-
In effect
Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Te
Anchorage, AK · Effective 2023-04-19 · Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Technology (AO 2023-35)
The Anchorage Assembly voted 10-1 to bar the municipality from acquiring or using facial recognition technology for surveillance, with limited exceptions requiring Assembly approval.
-
In effect
Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized
Portland, OR · Effective 2023-04-05 · Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized by City Council (Ordinance 191882)
Portland City Council authorized the Police Bureau to operate drones on April 5, 2023, expanded them citywide in September 2024, and launched a Drone as First Responder pilot in September 2025, with policy explicitly barring mass surveillance and facial recognition.
-
In effect
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera
Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · Effective 2022-08-01 · Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera Surveillance System
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 (Colorado Springs) deployed nearly 400 Verkada AI-enabled cameras with facial recognition to identify 'persons of interest,' installed before Colorado's 2022 statewide facial-recognition moratorium and allowed to continue under the grandfather provision.
-
In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing
Boston, MA · Effective 2021-10-21 · Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing
Boston bars police from acquiring, deploying, or newly repurposing surveillance technology without City Council approval and restricts sharing student information with police, complementing its earlier facial-recognition ban.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r
Minneapolis, MN · Effective 2021-02-12 · Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial recognition technology
Minneapolis' City Council voted 13-0 to bar all city agencies, including the police department, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or data derived from it.
-
In effect
LAPD Facial Recognition Policy
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2021-01-12 · L.A. Board of Police Commissioners facial recognition use policy (Jan. 2021)
After officers were caught using Clearview AI, the LA Police Commission adopted a policy in early 2021 restricting LAPD facial recognition to the county's official mugshot database (LACRIS) for criminal investigations. Commercial face-scraping services like Clearview AI are prohibited.
-
In effect
New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti
Lockport City School District, NY · Effective 2020-12-22 · New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halting Lockport CSD facial recognition system)
A first-in-the-nation state moratorium signed December 2020 halted the $2.7 million facial-recognition surveillance system that the Lockport City School District had activated in January 2020, pending a state privacy and demographic-accuracy review.
-
In effect
Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin
New Orleans, LA · Effective 2020-12-17 · Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance banning NOPD facial recognition and predictive policing
New Orleans' City Council banned NOPD use of facial recognition, stingrays, and predictive policing in 2020, but the council rolled back the facial recognition ban to permit limited use in 2022.
-
In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-16 · Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometric-surveillance and predictive-policing bans (amended Surveillance Transparency Ordinance)
On December 16, 2020, the Oakland City Council approved a drone use policy requiring annual reporting and, via revisions to its surveillance transparency ordinance, expanded its facial-recognition ban to other biometric surveillance and barred predictive-policing software.
-
In effect
Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial
Madison, WI · Effective 2020-12-01 · Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial recognition technology
Madison's Common Council voted 17-2 to bar city agencies from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or facial-surveillance-derived information, with narrow exceptions for human-trafficking and missing/exploited-children cases.
-
In effect
Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use
Pittsburgh, PA · Effective 2020-09-22 · Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use of facial recognition and predictive policing technology
Pittsburgh's City Council barred the police bureau from obtaining or using facial recognition or predictive policing technology without prior City Council approval, functioning as a moratorium on new use.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci
Portland, OR · Effective 2020-09-09 · Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus
Portland's City Council unanimously banned all city bureaus, including police, from using or acquiring face recognition technology, with narrow device-unlock and redaction exceptions.
-
In effect
Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P
Portland, ME · Effective 2020-08-04 · Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the Portland Jetport and ocean port)
Portland barred city use of facial recognition after debate over the city-run Jetport and ocean port, though the ban does not reach federal CBP use required for international-flight processing.
-
In effect
NYPD POST Act
New York City, NY · Effective 2020-07-15 · NYC Local Law 65 of 2020, as amended 2025
The POST Act requires the NYPD to publicly disclose what surveillance technologies it uses and publish impact and use policies for each one. 2025 amendments added facial recognition audits, itemized technology inventories, and disclosure of outside entities that receive NYPD surveillance data.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston
Boston, MA · Effective 2020-06-24 · Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston
Boston's City Council voted unanimously to ban city government, including police, from using face surveillance technology and from asking third parties to use it on their behalf.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology
Santa Cruz became the first U.S. city to bar its police department from using predictive policing (and facial recognition) technology unless the City Council finds by resolution that it is peer-reviewed, unbiased, and protective of civil rights.
-
In effect
Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur
Springfield, MA · Effective 2020-02-24 · Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face surveillance technology
Springfield's City Council voted 11-2 to impose a five-year moratorium barring the police department and other municipal agencies from using facial surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2020-01-13 · Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technology
Cambridge's City Council banned all city departments, including police, from using face surveillance technology, joining a wave of Massachusetts municipal bans.
-
In effect
Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-07-16 · Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 9.64) banning city/police face recognition
Oakland's City Council amended its surveillance ordinance to bar all city agencies, including police, from acquiring, using, or accessing facial recognition technology.
-
In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance
Somerville, as part of the CCOPS movement, unanimously banned any city department from using face-surveillance technology and barred use of face-recognition-derived data in municipal proceedings.
-
In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal use of face recognition
Somerville's City Council unanimously banned any city department or agency, including police, from using face surveillance technology, making it the first East Coast city to do so.
-
In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · Effective 2019-05-14 · San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (facial-recognition ban covering Muni/SFMTA)
San Francisco's Surveillance Technology Ordinance bans city departments including the SFMTA/Muni from using facial recognition and requires surveillance-impact reports and annual use reports for surveillance tech.
-
In effect
Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2018-12-10 · Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Cambridge bars city departments from funding, acquiring, or using surveillance technology without express City Council approval, requiring public impact reports, a use policy, and ongoing use reporting.
-
In effect
First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio
City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · Effective 2018-12-01 · First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal)
Delta, CBP, TSA and Hartsfield-Jackson opened the first end-to-end biometric terminal in the U.S., using facial recognition for check-in, bag drop, TSA screening, boarding, and CBP arrival.
-
In effect
New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules
New Orleans, LA · New Orleans, La., Code ch. 147, as amended July 21, 2022
New Orleans banned facial recognition, predictive policing, and cell-site simulators in December 2020, but the council partially repealed the ban in July 2022, letting police use facial recognition (with human review and reporting) for serious violent crimes. In 2025 it emerged NOPD had received real-time facial recognition alerts from a private camera network in violation of these rules; alerts were paused in April 2025 and a proposal to authorize real-time FR was withdrawn, leaving the 2022 rules in place.
-
Proposed / pending
Milwaukee PD Facial Recognition Halt
Milwaukee, WI · Milwaukee Police Department facial-recognition use halt (Feb 2026); SOP under development
After public pushback, the Milwaukee Police Department halted its use of facial recognition technology in February 2026. A city oversight body had found that MPD was using the technology without any formal standard operating procedure, and a proposed deal with vendor Biometrica (trading 2.5 million booking photos for free access) drew strong community and council opposition. No binding facial-recognition policy has been adopted; MPD says an operating procedure is still being developed.
-
Proposed / pending
City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase
Missoula, MT · City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase pending a surveillance policy
The Missoula City Council delayed a $366,390 park security camera upgrade contract over resident concerns about AI features like facial recognition, directing the administration to draft a surveillance policy before any purchase.
-
Proposed / pending
Ban biometric recognition in public accommodations (Ban The Scan)
New York City · NYC Int 0213-2026
Would make it illegal for places of public accommodation (stores, restaurants, music venues, theaters, etc.) to use biometric recognition systems to verify or identify customers without notice and prior written consent. Requires written policies governing use of collected biometric data and procedures for customers to request erasure of their biometric information.
-
Proposed / pending
Limit facial recognition in residential buildings (Ban The Scan)
New York City · NYC Int 0428-2026
Would prohibit owners of multiple dwellings from installing or using biometric recognition systems that identify tenants or their guests. Modifies existing smart-access regulations and adds new restrictions on facial recognition and related biometric technologies in residential settings.
-
Expired
Baltimore FR Ban (Expired)
Baltimore, MD · Effective 2021-09-08 · Baltimore, Md., Council Bill 21-0001 (2021) (expired Dec. 31, 2022)
Baltimore's 2021 ordinance banned private entities and individuals (and most city agencies) from using face surveillance systems, with criminal penalties. It contained a sunset clause and EXPIRED on December 31, 2022 when the City Council did not extend it. As of June 2026 the ban is no longer in effect; 2023 successor bills were not confirmed as enacted.