Consumer data privacy laws by state

AI Laws USA tracks 448 U.S. AI rules on consumer data privacy across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.

Federal consumer data privacy rules (45)

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
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
Patel v. Facebook (BIPA)

N.D. Cal. · Effective February 26, 2021 · In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig., No. 3:15-cv-03747 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021); 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019)

The largest biometric-privacy settlement in U.S. history at the time — $650 million paid by Facebook to roughly 1.6 million Illinois users whose facial templates were extracted by the 'Tag Suggestions' feature without BIPA consent. Each class member received about $400.

Full entry · Court record
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
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
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
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. Amazon (Alexa)

FTC · Effective July 19, 2023 · United States v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00811 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2023)

Companion FTC action settled with Amazon's Alexa division for $25M in 2023, alleging Amazon retained children's voice recordings indefinitely despite COPPA, deleted records when parents requested but kept transcripts and the underlying voice models, and used the data to train Alexa's voice-recognition AI.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FTC v. Amazon (Ring)

FTC · Effective June 16, 2023 · Federal Trade Commission v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C. 2023)

The FTC settled with Amazon's Ring subsidiary for $5.8M in 2023 over privacy and security failures — including allowing employees and contractors to view customer videos without consent and failing to prevent stalkers from compromising accounts. The settlement restricts Ring's use of customer videos for product / AI development.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
In re Google Photos BIPA

Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. · Effective September 28, 2022 · Rivera v. Google LLC, No. 2019-CH-00990 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.)

Illinois Google Photos users won a $100 million settlement in 2022 over allegations Google extracted face templates from uploaded photos without BIPA consent. Each claimant was estimated to receive between $200 and $400.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
In re TikTok ($92M)

N.D. Ill. · Effective July 28, 2022 · In re TikTok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL No. 2948 (N.D. Ill. 2022)

TikTok agreed to a $92 million multi-district settlement in 2021 (final approval July 2022) over claims it collected facial geometry, voiceprints, and biometric identifiers from minor and adult users without BIPA consent — among the first major social-media settlements covering algorithmic face/voice analysis on short-form video.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
Blocked / in litigation
Florida AG v. OpenAI (AI safety, minors)

United States · Effective June 1, 2026 · State of Florida ex rel. Uthmeier v. OpenAI LLC et al. (Highlands County 10th Jud. Cir., June 1, 2026; removed to S.D. Fla. July 2, 2026)

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed the first-in-nation state-led lawsuit against OpenAI on June 1, 2026, in Highlands County Circuit Court, alleging ChatGPT was deceptively marketed to minors despite known safety risks. The 10-count complaint cites specific harms including the death of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who died by suicide following extensive ChatGPT conversations, and the alleged use of ChatGPT by the accused Florida State University mass shooter. OpenAI LLC and CEO Sam Altman (named personally) removed the case to federal court before Judge Aileen Cannon in Fort Pierce on July 2, 2026. Florida has moved to remand; the jurisdictional battle is ongoing.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En

United States · Effective December 26, 2025 · Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States

This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FBI 2024 Elder Fraud Report

United States · Effective April 29, 2025 · FBI IC3 2024 Elder Fraud Report (Apr. 29, 2025)

The FBI's annual Elder Fraud Report — published April 2025 for calendar year 2024 — documented $4.885 billion in losses by Americans 60+, with AI voice cloning, AI-driven romance and pig-butchering scams, and tech-support fraud identified as fastest-growing vectors. The report is the principal federal basis for AI elder-fraud policy and enforcement priorities.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FBI IC3 AI fraud PSA

United States · Effective December 3, 2024 · FBI IC3 PSA I-120324-PSA (Dec. 3, 2024)

The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center warned that criminals are using generative AI for phishing, impersonation, romance scams, investment fraud, and synthetic identity creation — and gave concrete defenses, like asking a 'secret word' on suspicious family calls. The PSA underpins FBI investigative priority and informs federal AI-fraud charging decisions.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Treasury AI Cyber Report (Fin. Services)

United States · Effective March 27, 2024 · Treasury Report (March 2024)

Treasury released a sector-wide report outlining AI-specific cybersecurity risks facing banks and financial institutions, the gap between large and small firms in AI-fraud defense, and supervisory expectations for AI-driven fraud, deepfakes, and prompt-injection attacks.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat

United States · Effective January 1, 2023 · TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)

TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Doe v. GitHub (Copilot)

N.D. Cal. · Effective November 3, 2022 · Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-06823 (N.D. Cal.)

Anonymous software developers sued GitHub, Microsoft and OpenAI in November 2022, alleging GitHub Copilot trained on their open-source code in violation of open-source licences (which require attribution) and of DMCA § 1202. In September 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NINTH CIRCUIT REJECTED THE § 1202 THEORY, affirming the district court. Section 1202 prohibits intentionally removing copyright management information — an author's name, a copyright notice — from a copyrighted work. The developers argued that because code generated by the models resembled theirs but came out WITHOUT that information, the information had been unlawfully removed. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, and the holding is narrow but consequential: THE ABSENCE OF COPYRIGHT INFORMATION FROM A NEW WORK DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, MEAN SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REMOVED IT. Removing information from an existing work and creating a new work that never carried it are different acts. This is a LOSS for the plaintiffs and, on EFF's account, a win for programmers and internet users generally, because the opposite rule would have created a new source of liability reaching far past AI — remixes, classroom adaptations, reverse engineering — and would have fallen hardest on independent developers who cannot afford to litigate statutory-damages claims for years and would settle even when their use was lawful. Two things survive. Traditional copyright infringement claims are untouched: a developer can still sue if a model is used to reproduce their code. And the plaintiffs' CONTRACT claims against the AI companies, based on the open-source licence terms, remain live.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
OSTP AI Bill of Rights Blueprint

United States · Effective October 4, 2022 · OSTP Blueprint (October 2022)

The Blueprint laid out five non-binding principles for protecting Americans from automated systems: safe and effective systems, algorithmic discrimination protections, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives. It remains the most widely cited federal articulation of AI rights and is referenced by state AI laws.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I

United States · Effective June 1, 2022 · Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports

CBP completed nationwide deployment of Simplified Arrival, which photographs international arrivals at airport inspection points and matches faces against government passport/visa galleries, with opt-out for U.S. citizens.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports

United States · Effective January 1, 2020 · CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports

CBP runs biometric facial comparison at roughly 11 U.S. cruise seaports (including Miami and Port Everglades), scanning disembarking passengers' faces against passport/visa photos with a U.S.-citizen opt-out.

Full entry · News report
Blocked / in litigation
Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for lo

United States · Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for location data / geofence warrants)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in smartphone location data, holding that government access to such data (including via geofence warrants) is a search requiring constitutional protection.

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Robinson v. Meta voiceprint CDAFA suit dismissed (2026)

United States · Robinson v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2026) (order of dismissal; Breyer, J.)

A California Facebook and Messenger user, Nicholas Robinson, sued Meta claiming it unlawfully collected 'voiceprints' from his Messenger calls and used them for identification, product improvement and targeted advertising, in violation of California's anti-hacking law. On September 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the case, finding Robinson had agreed to Meta's Terms of Service and privacy notices, which disclosed that voice recordings may be used to identify users. The ruling did not decide whether Meta actually creates voiceprints, and it does not affect a separate Illinois biometric privacy (BIPA) suit against Meta that is continuing.

Full entry · News report
Blocked / in litigation
Sigwalt v. Amazon/Ring — Familiar Faces facial recognition suit

United States · Sigwalt v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01887 (W.D. Wash. filed June 1, 2026)

A proposed class action filed June 1, 2026 in federal court in Seattle against Amazon and its Ring subsidiary challenges Ring's 'Familiar Faces' facial-recognition feature, alleging Ring collects facial-recognition data from people who pass in front of its cameras without their consent. Amazon and Ring filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2026; briefing runs through November 30, 2026.

Full entry · Court record
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.

Full entry · Agency page
Proposed / pending
Stop Spying Bosses Act (Senate, 2026)

United States · Stop Spying Bosses Act, introduced June 18, 2026, U.S. Senate (Markey/Schatz/Booker et al.)

The Stop Spying Bosses Act, introduced June 18, 2026 in the U.S. Senate by Senators Markey, Schatz, and Booker, would sharply limit what data employers can collect on workers and how they can use it. Under the bill, employers could only collect data strictly necessary for a defined legitimate work purpose, and would be prohibited from monitoring union activity, political or religious views, immigration status, off-duty conduct, or health information. Biometric data collection — fingerprints, voiceprints, iris scans, facial maps, gait patterns — would require express consent and a legitimate work purpose. The bill would also prohibit using collected data to predict worker behavior, emotions, or beliefs unrelated to job performance. Companion legislation is the Senate No Robot Bosses Act (also introduced June 18, 2026). Senate companion to the House-side No Robot Bosses Act (HB 6371).

Full entry · Bill text
Proposed / pending
FTC Commercial Surveillance ANPR

United States · 87 Fed. Reg. 51273

The FTC's advance notice of proposed rulemaking on 'commercial surveillance and data security' asked whether to write rules limiting how companies collect data, train AI models on consumers, and use automated decision-making. The proceeding is technically open but has not advanced to a notice of proposed rulemaking.

Full entry · Agency page
15 more
Federal Facial Recognition & Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
Stop Flock Abuse Act (Hawley, 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10502 AI use under FISA 702 report · United States · Proposed / pending
DEFIANCE Act (deepfake-porn civil suits) · 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
Meta AI Layoff Discrimination Lawsuit (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Doe v. X.AI (Grok NCII deepfakes class action) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Kistler v. Eightfold AI (FCRA, AI hiring) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
In re Clearview AI Class Settlement · N.D. Ill. · Blocked / in litigation
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
APRA AI provisions (dead) · United States · Expired

State consumer data privacy rules (179)

Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 1119 Adam's Law, companion chatbots (2026)

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

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

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
New York SAFE for Kids Act final rules (2026)

New York · Effective January 25, 2027 · N.Y. Off. of the Att'y Gen., SAFE for Kids Act Final Rules (July 28, 2026) (Act eff. Jan. 25, 2027)

New York's Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act got its final implementing rules on July 28, 2026, released jointly by Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul. The Act itself takes effect January 25, 2027. What makes these rules significant is that they put numbers on age assurance where almost every other regime says only that a method must be 'reasonable.' The rules set an Accuracy Minimum: a method's false positive rate must be no more than 0.1% for minors aged 0 to 7, 1% for ages 8 to 13, 2% for ages 14 to 15, 8% for age 16 and 15% for age 17, excluding cases where a user refuses or fails to provide data and cases where the result is inconclusive. The method must also detect attempts to circumvent it at a rate of 98% or better. A second standard, the Total Accuracy Minimum, applies the same percentage ceilings to false positives and inconclusive outcomes combined — closing the obvious gap, since a method could otherwise hit its accuracy target by returning 'inconclusive' whenever it was unsure. Social media companies must pick a method meeting these rates, test it annually, and keep the test results for at least five years. The graduated thresholds are the design insight: being wrong about a seven-year-old is treated as far more serious than being wrong about a seventeen-year-old.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California 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
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
Connecticut PA 26-14 ALPR limits and 21-day retention (2026)

Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Public Act 26-14 (2026), Sec. 13-15 (ALPR); Sec. 1 (civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights)

Connecticut's Public Act 26-14, signed May 4, 2026, puts the state's first detailed limits on automated license plate readers. From October 1, 2026, public agencies and their vendors may run plate readers only for listed purposes (for police: checking plates against hotlists and crime databases, or searching for a plate tied to a specific criminal investigation, warrant, missing person or stolen car, with a logged reason). Plate data must be deleted after 21 days unless held under a warrant or as evidence. Police may not use plate data to enforce immigration law, to investigate people who seek or provide abortion or gender-affirming care that is legal in Connecticut, or to target people for First Amendment activity, and may share data out of state only with New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts agencies that sign a written promise to follow those rules. Vendor contracts must bar selling or freely sharing the data. The Attorney General can sue vendors (up to $2,500 per violation) and residents can sue agencies for injunctive relief. The same act also creates a state-law civil rights claim against federal or state officers who violate constitutional rights.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Florida FDOT statewide ALPR permit revocation (2026)

Florida · Effective August 31, 2026 · Florida Department of Transportation — statewide revocation of ALPR right-of-way permits (issued August 31, 2026; 30-day removal deadline)

On August 31, 2026 the Florida Department of Transportation revoked every active permit for an automated license plate reader on a state highway right-of-way, and gave agencies thirty days — until roughly September 30, 2026 — to physically remove the hardware. This covers Flock Safety cameras and any other ALPR installed on state roads. The FDOT memo gives the reasons plainly: an exponential increase in deployments, together with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns and surveillance schemes. The misuse is not hypothetical. In the Tampa Bay area at least two police officers, one in Haines City and one in Sarasota, were fired and arrested for allegedly using the cameras to stalk romantic interests. Governor Ron DeSantis had already called the technology and its misuse by police out of control and said legislative action was needed to protect Floridians' privacy. What makes this measure powerful is the mechanism rather than the rhetoric: Florida did not pass a law restricting how police may use license plate data. It used its property rights as the owner of the state highway right-of-way to revoke the permits that let the cameras be there at all. A city that wants to keep its ALPR program has to find somewhere other than a state road to put it. Gainesville turned all of its cameras off on September 3, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Washington SHB 1672 (employee monitoring notice, ADS restrictions, emotion AI ban)

Washington · Effective July 1, 2026 · Wash. SHB 1672 (2025 Session), effective July 1, 2026

Washington SHB 1672, effective July 1, 2026, is one of the most comprehensive U.S. employer monitoring laws. Employers must give employees 15 calendar days' written notice before any monitoring begins or before any change to monitoring. Notice must specify what is monitored, the method used, the purpose, who can access the data, and how long it is retained. The law prohibits off-duty monitoring, monitoring in private spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms), and monitoring personal vehicles. It restricts AI-based emotion recognition, gait recognition, and facial recognition in employment-related decisions. Employers must conduct impact assessments before deploying automated decision systems and must provide human oversight of ADS-driven performance evaluations. Employees have a private right of action with damages of at least $500 per violation plus attorney fees. Civil penalties may reach $10,000 per violation. The law applies to any employer with one or more Washington employees, including remote employees of out-of-state companies.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Oregon SB 1516 — ALPR limits and vendor liability (2026)

Oregon · Effective March 31, 2026 · Or. Laws 2026, ch. 77 (SB 1516), §§ 3-9

Oregon's SB 1516, signed March 31, 2026 and effective at once, limits how police can use automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. Police may use them only for listed purposes, such as finding vehicles linked to crimes, arrest warrants or missing people, uninsured or unregistered vehicles, parking or controlling secured areas. Plate data must be deleted after 30 days unless it relates to a criminal investigation or court case. ALPR vendors may not access, sell or share the data, and a person whose data a vendor misuses on purpose or through gross negligence can sue for damages. Lawmakers have said they may push for a full ban on Flock-style cameras in 2027.

Full entry · Bill text
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
Tohono O'odham Research Code

Tohono O'odham Nation · Effective May 23, 2013 · 17 Tohono O'odham Code ch. 8 (Resolution No. 13-165, May 23, 2013)

Tohono O'odham Nation's research code establishes a tribal IRB with sole authority to control publication of all research, disclosures, and findings on tribal land. Vests ownership of all research-derived work product and copyrights — including AI/data products — with the Nation.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Texas CUBI (2009)

TX · Effective September 1, 2009 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §503.001 (2009)

Enacted in 2009, the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) was the second state biometric privacy law in the country (after Illinois BIPA). It requires consent before commercial biometric capture and caps damages at $25,000 per violation. AG Paxton used CUBI to secure a $1.4B Meta settlement (2024) and $1.375B Google settlement (2025) — making it the most-recovered state biometric statute.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
IL BIPA (2008, first-in-nation biometric law)

IL · Effective October 3, 2008 · 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (P.A. 95-994, 2008; amended P.A. 103-0769, 2024)

Signed October 3, 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was the first state biometric privacy law in the United States — and remains the most powerful. Its private right of action and statutory damages ($1,000 negligent / $5,000 intentional per violation) have driven major class-action settlements, including the $650M Facebook face-tagging settlement (2021) and TikTok's $92M consumer-privacy MDL settlement that included BIPA claims (final approval July 28, 2022). 2024 amendment (P.A. 103-0769) limited claims to one accrual per person per collection method. Still in effect 2026.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
BIPA

Illinois · Effective October 3, 2008 · 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.

The strongest US biometric privacy law: companies must get written consent before collecting fingerprints, face scans, voiceprints, or other biometrics, publish retention/destruction policies, and cannot sell biometric data. Individuals can sue directly and recover $1,000–$5,000 per violation, which has produced major settlements against facial recognition and AI companies.

Full entry · Statute
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)
California AB 1043 Digital Age Assurance Act (+ AB 1856)

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

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

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
Connecticut PA 26-73 (employee electronic monitoring disclosure)

Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Pub. Act 26-73 (Substitute SB 472, 2026), eff. Oct. 1, 2026

Connecticut employers must provide written notice to employees before electronically monitoring their activities on employer-owned devices or networks. The law bars employers from engaging in deceptive or covert electronic monitoring of employees. It requires employers to clearly disclose the types of monitoring that may occur and to obtain acknowledgment from employees. The law covers monitoring of email, internet usage, telephone calls, and computer activity on employer systems. It takes effect October 1, 2026 and is enforced by the Connecticut Department of Labor.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Virginia EO 22 (2026) — data center accountability + AI task force

Virginia · Effective September 18, 2026 · Va. Exec. Order No. 22 (Sept. 18, 2026)

Virginia's governor signed an executive order on September 18, 2026 that does two separate things: it starts implementing a new Virginia Data Center Accountability Framework, and it creates a rapid-response AI Task Force. Most of the data center half is instruction — agencies are told to study, draft, consult and report back within 120, 180 and 240 days. TWO provisions bite immediately. First, no executive branch agency may enter into, enforce, or require a nondisclosure agreement that keeps the public from learning material information about a proposed commercial data center, its public incentives, its expected resource demands, or its community impacts; existing NDAs are honored, but new ones (absent extraordinary circumstances such as national security) violate the order. Second, effective on issuance, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership may no longer give a new data center project with anticipated peak demand of 25 MW or more any assistance through the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program, any expedited permitting program, or any similar discretionary state site-readiness or expedited-review program. The order also DESIGNATES the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area a cooling water scarcity area and tells DEQ to expedite rules for noise and for cooling water scarcity. READ THE PRESS COVERAGE CAREFULLY: national and local outlets reported that Virginia was 'eliminating by-right approval' and 'requiring local approval of any data center using more than 25 megawatts.' Those are items in the framework the governor will ask the 2027 General Assembly to pass. THEY ARE NOT IN THIS ORDER. A governor cannot rewrite local land use law by executive order, and this one does not try to. What the order's own 25 MW threshold governs is eligibility for STATE economic-development assistance, not local approval.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Rhode Island ALPR installation pause and 60-day review (2026)

Rhode Island · Effective August 18, 2026 · Rhode Island — Governor's order pausing new ALPR installation and commissioning a 60-day statewide review (issued August 18, 2026)

Governor Dan McKee ordered a statewide pause on installing or activating any new automated license plate reader cameras on August 18, 2026, together with a sixty-day review to establish uniform standards governing the technology and the data it collects. The order binds the Rhode Island State Police directly: they may keep using the cameras they already have, but they may not install or activate any new ones. For cities and towns the order is a request rather than a command — McKee urged them to follow suit, which is the limit of what a governor can do to independent municipal police departments. He directed State Police Colonel Darnel Weaver to run the review in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and other stakeholders. The stated endpoint is legislation: McKee said that when the review is done he will work with lawmakers on a bill codifying the protections and establishing clear, consistent statewide standards for ALPR use. The order came as municipalities across Rhode Island were already resisting Flock cameras on their own, and it is one of four state-level actions in August 2026 — with Florida, Texas and Connecticut — that marked a national turn against license plate surveillance.

Full entry · News report
In effect
PR Ley 163-2026 / P. del S. 441 (Image Rights)

Puerto Rico · Effective August 3, 2026 · Ley 163-2026 (P. del S. 441, 19th Leg. Assembly); signed August 3, 2026

Puerto Rico Law 163-2026 (P. del S. 441) expands the island's right-of-image statute (Law 139-2011) to expressly cover AI-generated deepfakes and voice clones. Creates civil causes of action when someone's appearance, voice, gestures, movements, or other identifiable attributes are synthetically generated, cloned, simulated, or altered without consent. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González Colón on August 3, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
MN HF 1606 AI Nudification Ban (2026)

Minnesota · Effective August 1, 2026 · Minn. Sess. Law 2026, Ch. [pending publication]; HF 1606 (94th Leg., 2025-2026)

Minnesota enacted the first state law in the United States banning AI-powered 'nudification' technology — software that digitally strips clothing from images or videos of real people to create fake nude or sexualized images. Signed by Gov. Tim Walz on May 7, 2026, and effective August 1, 2026, the law makes it illegal for any website, application, software, or service to allow users to access, download, or use nudification tools, or to perform nudification on a user's behalf — even with the user's consent. Civil penalties are at least $500,000 per unlawful access, download, or use, enforced by the Attorney General under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. Injured persons can also sue for up to three times their actual damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Elon Musk's xAI Corp. sued AG Keith Ellison on July 27, 2026 to block the law; a federal judge (Judge Donovan Frank) denied the preliminary injunction on July 31, 2026 and again on September 4, 2026.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Kentucky HB 58 ALPR limits and 90-day retention (2026)

Kentucky · Effective July 15, 2026 · 2026 Ky. Acts Ch. 71 (HB 58)

Kentucky's new license plate reader law limits who can use plate-reader cameras and for what, restricts selling the data, and generally requires deleting captured plate data after 90 days unless it is needed for an investigation or a preservation request. Police agencies must adopt written policies and publish where their cameras are.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Maine LD 61 (employer surveillance disclosure & prohibition)

Maine · Effective July 14, 2026 · Maine P.L. 2025, Ch. 524 (LD 61 / H.P. 25), 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, effective July 14, 2026

Maine's LD 61 (P.L. 2025, Ch. 524) requires employers to notify employees before any surveillance begins and to disclose surveillance practices to job applicants during interviews. Employers must provide annual written notice to all current employees describing what is monitored, how, and why. Employees may refuse installation of monitoring software on their personal devices. The law prohibits audiovisual monitoring in an employee's home, personal vehicle, or personal property. Civil fines of $100–$500 apply per violation. The law covers all public and private employers in Maine. Effective July 14, 2026.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)

Virginia · Effective July 1, 2026 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (2026), effective July 1, 2026

Virginia Code § 15.2-1723.2, effective July 1, 2026, imposes statewide binding requirements on how local law enforcement agencies in Virginia may use facial recognition technology. Agencies wishing to use facial recognition must publicly post a policy meeting or exceeding the State Police model, publish annual use reports by April 1 each year, and give 30 days written notice to their governing body before procuring the technology. The law bans real-time tracking of identified individuals in public spaces and prohibits creating a live-video database using facial recognition. All searches must be logged and violations by operators constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. The law applies to all Virginia localities, including Northern Virginia regional law enforcement systems.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Kiowa Tribe data sovereignty resolution (KL-CY-2025-005)

Kiowa Tribe (OK) · Effective April 22, 2025 · Kiowa Tribe Legislature Resolution KL-CY-2025-005 (effective April 22, 2025)

The Kiowa Tribe formally adopted Resolution KL-CY-2025-005 on April 12, 2025, affirming its sovereign right to govern, protect, and control all data concerning its members, governance, lands, cultural heritage, and economic enterprises. The resolution declares that such data is the exclusive property of the Kiowa Tribe and may not be exploited, misused, or accessed without tribal authorization. The Kiowa Tribe is a federally recognized tribe headquartered in Carnegie, Oklahoma, with approximately 12,000 enrolled members. The resolution directly addresses AI-era data collection by asserting that no AI system or external entity may collect, use, or process Kiowa data without tribal consent. A companion resolution (KL-CY-2025-00X) established guidelines for data-sharing agreements with external entities, recognizing data as a critical tribal asset.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CPPA Honda ADMT settlement

CA · Effective March 12, 2025 · CPPA, In re American Honda Motor Co. (Mar. 12, 2025)

California's privacy agency fined American Honda $632,500 — its first public enforcement action — for making consumers go through hoops to exercise opt-out and access rights, including against automated decision-making and data-broker sharing. The agency signaled that ADMT (automated decision-making technology) compliance is now a top enforcement priority for AI-driven consumer profiling.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CA AB 1008 (CCPA + AI)

CA · Effective January 1, 2025 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140; AB 1008 (Stats. 2024, ch. 853)

California clarified that personal information remains protected by the CCPA even when it is embedded in or generated by AI systems — including model weights and AI-generated synthetic content about a person. Closes a loophole AI developers had used to argue training data and model outputs fell outside privacy law.

Full entry · Statute
149 more
An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task · Maine · In effect
NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
NYDFS CL 7 (2024) — Insurance AI Anti-Discrimination · New York · In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
NCAI Res. SAC-22-026 (Emerging Tech) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
MN drone-warrant law (2020) · Minnesota · In effect
NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
Plateau Peoples TK/BC Labels · Plateau Peoples' Web Portal (Multi-Tribal) · In effect
TN drone trespass / FFUSA · Tennessee · In effect
IL Drone Surveillance Act · Illinois · 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
VA warrantless drone ban · Virginia · In effect
Navajo Nation Privacy Act · Navajo Nation · In effect
Navajo NNHRRB · Navajo Nation · In effect
Vermont Data Broker Law (H.211) · Vermont · Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1331 workplace bathroom surveillance ban · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
KY AG v. Character.AI chatbot suit (2026) · Kentucky · Blocked / in litigation
Alabama Personal Data Protection Act (privacy / profiling opt-out) · Alabama · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oklahoma SB 546 (opt out of profiling for significant decisions) · Oklahoma · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Connecticut ALPR installation pause request and POST guidance (2026) · Connecticut · In effect
CT SB 1295 (AI training-data disclosure) · Connecticut · In effect
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement · California · In effect
VT AG Clark · VT · In effect
GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy · Maine · In effect
AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Go · Texas · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: G · Utah State Board of Education (USBE) · In effect
Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence · Connecticut · In effect
Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation · Utah · In effect
Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance an · MN · In effect
Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration o · Missouri · In effect
AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools · Ohio Department of Education and Workforce · 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
California SB 361 (data brokers must report sharing data with GenAI developers) · California · In effect
AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency) · California · In effect
Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell · California Department of Education · In effect
Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence · Mississippi · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Guideline · North Dakota · In effect
New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (personalized prices need a label) · New York · In effect
Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: · Kentucky · In effect
Montana MCDPA · Montana · In effect
Maryland Online Data Privacy Act · Maryland · In effect
Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use o · Louisiana · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy · Louisiana · In effect
Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging · Idaho · In effect
Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spre · Illinois · In effect
Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Compa · Tennessee · In effect
Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as St · Iowa · In effect
Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character. · Texas · In effect
Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an · Michigan · 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
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, an · Idaho · In effect
Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act · Minnesota · In effect
Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approv · Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) · In effect
Tennessee Information Protection Act (opt out of automated profiling decisions) · Tennessee · In effect
Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001) · Georgia · In effect
New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance · Alaska · In effect
State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Ve · New Mexico · In effect
Texas v. Google · TX · In effect
Texas v. Google ($1.375B) · TX · In effect
HB 452 (Mental Health Chatbots) · Utah · In effect
Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial I · Illinois · In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE P · Iowa · In effect
State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Se · Wisconsin · In effect
UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Gener · University of Tennessee System · In effect
Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190) · Oregon · In effect
Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analyt · Arkansas · In effect
Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2) · Alabama · In effect
New Jersey Data Protection Act · New Jersey · In effect
Texas v. Allstate / Arity · TX · In effect
CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory · CA · In effect
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o · California · In effect
Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboratio · Mississippi · 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
OR AG Rosenblum · OR · In effect
Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc · Texas A&M University System · In effect
NY AG James AI scam consumer alert · NY · In effect
Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K · Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) · In effect
North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificia · North Carolina · In effect
Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 · Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) · In effect
Florida Digital Bill of Rights (privacy / profiling opt-out) · Florida · In effect
Oregon SB 619 (opt out of profiling; child-data & assessment rules) · Oregon · In effect
TDPSA · Texas · In effect
Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools · Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) · In effect
South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) · South Carolina · In effect
AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies · Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) · In effect
SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
MA AG Campbell · MA · In effect
Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms · Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) · In effect
My Health My Data Act · Washington · In effect
California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit · California · In effect
State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Poli · Arizona · In effect
Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Cent · Rhode Island · In effect
Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Inte · Alabama · In effect
Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli · District of Columbia · In effect
OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy · District of Columbia · Proposed / pending
CA AG Bonta · CA · In effect
NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Consider · North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) · In effect
Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS- · New York · In effect
State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy · Indiana · In effect
Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard · Minnesota · In effect
Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard · Oklahoma · In effect
State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui · South Dakota · In effect
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo · California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · In effect
Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines · Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) · In effect
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutio · Ohio · In effect
Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intellige · New Jersey · In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G · Oregon Department of Education · In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition · New York State Education Department · In effect
New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on · New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) · In effect
Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Gen · Washington · In effect
State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P · Kansas · In effect
Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) · Colorado · In effect
Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) (profiling opt-out) · Connecticut · In effect
Cothron v. White Castle · IL · In effect
Virginia VCDPA (opt out of profiling, $7,500/violation) · Virginia · In effect
ACLU v. Clearview AI · IL · In effect
GA Synthetic NCII Transmission Law · Georgia · In effect
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame · University of California (UC System) · In effect
Va. Code 32.1-127 (rules for patient voice assistants in care facilities) · Virginia · In effect
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306 (revenge-porn law covers computer-generated images) · Wyoming · In effect
HI SB 309 (deepfake intimate-image crime) · Hawaii · In effect
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of · Vermont · In effect
AB 602 (Deepfake Intimate Images) · California · In effect
Rosenbach v. Six Flags · IL · In effect
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · In effect
WA Biometric Identifiers Act (2017) · WA · In effect
CA AB 856 (2015 drone trespass) · California · In effect
WI drone-surveillance ban · Wisconsin · In effect
Guam EDPA (5 GCA Ch. 14) · Guam · In effect
Guam Breach Notification (9 GCA Ch. 48) · Guam · In effect
House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
Arizona HB 2133 deepfake sexual content — vetoed 2026 · Arizona · Vetoed
Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening · Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · 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) · Expired
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito · New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · Proposed / pending
New York Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act (2026) · New York · Proposed / pending
NJ A5607 chatbot privacy bill · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
xAI v. Ellison (MN nudification ban challenge) · Minnesota · Blocked / in litigation
CCPA Original (AB 375, 2018) · CA · Repealed / replaced
AK SB 177 — AI deepfakes / cybersecurity / data privacy (dead, 2024) · Alaska · Expired

County consumer data privacy rules (48)

In effect
Knox County TN Flock camera ban and removal order (2026)

Knox County, TN · Effective August 31, 2026 · Knox County, Tenn. — emergency ordinance banning license plate readers and requiring removal of all 143 Flock cameras within 30 days (adopted August 31, 2026)

Knox County Commission unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on August 31, 2026 banning license plate readers in the county and ordering all 143 Flock cameras removed within thirty days. Because it was adopted as an emergency measure it required only a single vote and took effect immediately. Commissioner Adam Thompson brought the ordinance after sustained public opposition. Two details from the run-up are worth recording because they explain why the reaction was so complete. In late 2025 the Commission had approved a $1.5 million grant to the Knox County Sheriff's Office under the Tennessee Violent Crime Intervention Fund to advance crime-solving technology. And the Sheriff's Office had spent years buying Flock cameras in batches priced just ten dollars under the $25,000 threshold that would have required mayoral review — a procurement pattern that kept a 143-camera surveillance network out of the approval process that was supposed to catch it. Knox County is not simply declining to renew a contract, which is what most jurisdictions in this dataset have done. It banned the technology and ordered the existing hardware physically removed on a deadline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Monroe County IN Flock contract termination (2026)

Monroe County, IN · Effective July 23, 2026 · Monroe County, Ind. Board of Commissioners — termination of Flock Safety ALPR contract (July 23, 2026)

Monroe County commissioners voted 2-0 on July 23, 2026 to end the county's contract with Flock Safety and take down its six automated license plate reader cameras. Sheriff Ruben Marté supported the move. The contract would otherwise have run until September 2027, and ending it early may cost the county up to about $3,000. Commissioners specifically chose to remove the cameras, not just cancel the contract, because other agencies could keep using the data if the cameras stayed up. Monroe County, home to Bloomington, was among the first Indiana counties to drop Flock.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy

Montgomery County, PA · Effective November 18, 2025 · Montgomery County PA Commissioners policy (2025) (2025-11-18)

Montgomery County PA (Norristown) adopted AI governance policy: bars PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory of AI tools, and requires impact review before deployment in benefits or eligibility contexts.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Allen County IN County AI Use Policy

Allen County, IN · Effective November 4, 2025 · Allen County Commissioners policy (2025) (2025-11-04)

Allen County IN (Fort Wayne) adopted generative AI use policy: bars CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and prohibits AI-only adverse decisions in benefits or eligibility.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government

Sonoma County, CA · Effective October 14, 2025 · Sonoma County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-10-14)

Sonoma County adopted AI use guidelines for county employees prohibiting PII/PHI in public LLMs, requiring departmental approval before AI use, mandating disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications, and barring AI-only consequential decisions.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy

Fayette County, KY · Effective September 23, 2025 · LFUCG Administrative Regulation on AI (2025) (2025-09-23)

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (consolidated city-county) adopted AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before deployment in resident-facing services.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy

Williamson County, TN · Effective September 9, 2025 · Williamson County Mayor policy (2025) (2025-09-09)

Williamson County TN (Franklin/Brentwood) adopted generative AI use policy: prohibits CJIS/PHI/PII in public LLMs, requires human review of AI outputs, and mandates departmental inventory of AI-enabled tools.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Lane County OR

Lane County, OR · Effective August 19, 2025 · Lane County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-08-19)

Lane County OR adopted generative AI use policy for county employees: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and requires disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Riverside County CA Sheriff ALPR Policy & Retention

Riverside County, CA · Effective July 22, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy

Marion County, IN · Effective July 22, 2025 · Indianapolis-Marion County Mayor / Administrator AI Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)

Indianapolis (Unigov) / Marion County adopted citywide and countywide generative AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before AI-driven decisions in resident services.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy

Boulder County, CO · Effective May 13, 2025 · Boulder County Administrative Policy (2025) (2025-05-13)

Boulder County adopted generative AI use policy: requires staff training, prohibits entry of confidential or PII data into public LLMs, requires disclosure when AI is used in resident-facing communications, and bans AI-only decisions on benefits or enforcement.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework

Montgomery County, MD · Effective April 30, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Orange County CA Sheriff ALPR Use & Retention Policy

Orange County, CA · Effective April 15, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Loudoun County Sheriff's Office ALPR General Order 401.8

Loudoun County, VA · Effective March 24, 2025 · LCSO General Order 401

Loudoun County Sheriff's Office General Order 401.8 (Operations) governs Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR / Flock Safety) use by LCSO personnel. Last reviewed March 24, 2025 with the next review scheduled for November 1, 2027. The order requires data-sharing among other agencies to be governed by MOUs, states that ALPR data is owned by LCSO and is not sold to third parties, and is updated to reflect VA legislative changes effective July 1, 2025.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Montgomery County MD Police Directive FC 0627

Montgomery County, MD · Effective October 1, 2024 · MCPD Directive FC 0627 (Use of Facial Recognition Technology), posted 2024-10-01

Montgomery County Police Department Function Code 0627 — 'Use of Facial Recognition Technology' — is the operational directive governing MCPD's use of facial recognition. The directive was published October 1, 2024 on the official MCPD policy library. It is paired with Council Bill 33-22 (adopted Feb. 13, 2023) at the legislative level. Maryland's statewide HB 338/SB 182 (signed May 16, 2024) adds reasonable-suspicion-of-qualifying-offense and no-sole-basis-for-arrest constraints that apply to all state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies including MCPD.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Arlington County VA ACPD Automated License Plate Reader

Arlington County, VA · Effective April 1, 2024 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Marshall County IN Flock ALPR defund + cameras bagged (2026)

Marshall County, IN · Effective October 6, 2026 · Marshall County, Indiana: Council 4-3 2027 budget vote (Sept. 14, 2026); Commissioners 2-1 vote to bag Flock cameras (Oct. 6, 2026)

Marshall County, Indiana moved to shut off its Flock license-plate-reader cameras. The county council voted 4-3 to cut Flock funding from the 2027 budget, and commissioners voted 2-1 to cover the cameras. The prosecutor's office, which signed the Flock contract running through 2028, objects and may go to court, so the outcome is not final.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Ashland County OH health department AI governance policy (2026)

Ashland County, OH · Effective August 21, 2026 · Ashland County, Ohio — Board of Health AI governance policy (2026)

The Ashland County Board of Health UNANIMOUSLY approved a new AI GOVERNANCE POLICY for the county health department. Most AI-governance policies in this dataset come from school districts, city governments or state agencies; a COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH adopting one is unusual and worth recording separately, because the data a local health department holds is among the most sensitive any small public body handles — communicable disease reporting, vital records, inspections, immunisation registries, and in many counties direct clinical services. An AI tool introduced into that environment touches protected health information by default rather than by exception. What the policy actually requires is not established here, which is the entry's principal limitation. Ohio is the most active state in this dataset on data centers, but this is a different kind of measure entirely and should not be read as part of that cluster.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated

Monongalia County, WV · Effective December 10, 2025 · Monongalia County Commission approves Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance program

The Monongalia County Commission voted on December 10, 2025 to approve a three-year contract using $60,000 in opioid settlement funds for 20 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, over resident privacy objections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortio

Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office) · Effective May 9, 2025 · Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortion 'death investigation')

Johnson County Sheriff's deputies ran nationwide Flock automated license plate reader searches across tens of thousands of cameras and thousands of networks to locate a woman in a self-managed-abortion investigation, illustrating an operational sheriff ALPR practice.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
King County GenAI Guidelines

King County, WA · Effective September 27, 2024 · King County, GenAI Guidelines for Employees (Sept. 2024)

King County issued guidelines for employee use of generative AI, developed jointly by King County IT and the Office of Equity, Racial and Social Justice. The guidelines aim to reduce bias and protect sensitive personal data entrusted to the county, with a software review process for GenAI tools.

Full entry · Agency page
18 more
Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder · Montgomery County, MD · In effect
Santa Cruz County AI Policy · Santa Cruz County, CA · In effect
Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us · Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) · In effect
Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Moni · Central Bucks School District, PA · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use · King County, WA · In effect
King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202 · King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) · In effect
Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial · Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) · In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD) · Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · In effect
Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technolog · Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office) · In effect
Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detro · Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport) · In effect
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief · Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Proposed / pending
Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni · Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) · Proposed / pending
Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft) · Wake County Public School System, NC · Proposed / pending
Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Moni · Fort Bend Independent School District, TX · Proposed / pending
LA County ALPR immigration-data safeguards motion (Sept. 2025) · Los Angeles County, CA · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Starke County IN Flock non-renewal (2026) · Starke County, IN · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oconee County SC Protection from Mass Surveillance ordinance (pending) · Oconee County, SC · Proposed / pending
Cook County personal-info disclosure ban (proposed 2026) · Cook County, IL · Proposed / pending

City / local consumer data privacy rules (176)

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
Urbana IL surveillance technology oversight ordinance (2026)

Urbana, IL · Effective July 3, 2026 · City of Urbana, Ill. — Surveillance Technology Oversight Ordinance (July 3, 2026)

Urbana adopted a surveillance technology oversight ordinance on July 3, 2026 by a 6-1 vote, after nearly 19 months of discussion and an earlier tabling. It governs how city departments may buy and use surveillance technology and databases that monitor, track or identify individuals or groups. The provision that gives it real force is that council approval is required not only for new surveillance technologies but for those already in use — most ordinances of this type grandfather existing deployments, which is how a city ends up with oversight that never reaches the tools it actually operates. Before any technology can be adopted, the department must publicly explain what it is, why it is needed, how much it will cost, and how it could affect residents' privacy and civil liberties. The scope is broad: police drones, facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems, social media monitoring software, and privately owned security cameras such as Ring doorbells where the city can access them remotely. Vehicle and body cameras are exempt. Ward 3 Alderwoman Shirese Hursey cast the lone no vote. Urbana sits beside Champaign in central Illinois and is home to the University of Illinois.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Aurora IL data center standards + biometric privacy ordinance (O26-021, 2026)

Aurora, IL · Effective March 25, 2026 · City of Aurora, IL, Ordinance O26-021 (adopted Mar. 24, 2026), adding Code chs. 50-51

Aurora, Illinois adopted two new chapters of city code for data centers. Chapter 50 sets energy, water and noise performance standards for new data centers, limits backup-generator testing to weekday business hours, and requires every data center to file yearly energy, water and noise reports, which the city must publish by June 1 each year. Chapter 51 is a local privacy law modeled on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA): data centers and data center businesses in Aurora that handle fingerprints, face geometry or other biometric data must keep written retention and destruction policies, may not sell that data, must file a signed annual certificate of compliance (disclosing any BIPA lawsuits or investigations), and face city fines of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. People harmed can sue for $1,000 per negligent and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation. The ordinance followed a September 2025 citywide moratorium on data centers and warehouses (O25-064).

Full entry · Statute
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 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
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)

San Francisco, CA · Effective July 15, 2019 · S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B

San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban its own government — including police — from using facial recognition technology. The Board of Supervisors gave final passage 10-1 on June 4, 2019; the ordinance became law without the mayor's signature on June 14, 2019 and took effect July 15, 2019, codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B. It also requires Board approval and public use policies before city departments acquire any other surveillance technology. Still in effect 2026 and the template for municipal facial-recognition bans nationwide.

Full entry · Statute
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.

Full entry · Statute
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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
South Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)

South Windsor, CT · Effective October 5, 2026 · South Windsor Town Council resolution on Flock ALPRs (October 5, 2026)

On October 5, 2026, South Windsor's Town Council voted 6-3 to stop using its Flock automated license plate readers. The resolution tells the town manager to end the Flock contract, have the readers removed within 60 days and purge the data collected. Bringing the technology back would require another public hearing and a public vote.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Sanibel FL ALPR data-sharing ban and search restrictions (2026)

Sanibel, FL · Effective September 14, 2026 · Sanibel, Fla. — city council decision ending interagency ALPR data sharing and tightening database search requirements, September 14, 2026

The Sanibel Police Department can no longer SHARE data collected by automated license plate readers with other agencies, and can no longer RECEIVE information from cameras in other jurisdictions. City leaders made the decision at a council meeting on Monday, September 14, 2026, after an hour-long discussion in which members raised concerns about the use and sharing of camera data. Both halves of that matter. Most ALPR controversy concerns collection, but the practical privacy harm usually comes from AGGREGATION — a three-camera island system is a narrow net, while a three-camera system plugged into a statewide or national network is a query interface to everyone else's cameras. Sanibel cut both directions at once. The city has used automated license plate readers since 2008 and currently operates THREE FLOCK FALCON cameras. Residents had previously raised questions about who can access the data, how it is retained, and whether it can be shared. Councilmember Holly Smith framed the proportionality question directly: with three cameras here but multiple cameras everywhere else throughout the state, is this something the city really needs right now? Alongside the sharing decision, Sanibel police UPDATED THEIR OWN POLICIES for accessing and using license plate reader information. Officers are NOW REQUIRED to provide an OFFENSE TYPE, a CASE NUMBER and a WRITTEN EXPLANATION before searching the database. PREVIOUSLY ONLY AN OFFENSE TYPE WAS REQUIRED. And TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED from the list of offense types eligible for searches. A case number ties a query to an actual investigation and a written explanation creates an auditable record, which together convert an essentially unlogged capability into one that can be reviewed after the fact. Police Chief William Dalton defended the technology's value: around 80% of the people arrested each year are from somewhere other than Sanibel, so people come onto the island, commit crimes and leave. Separately, a PROPOSED ORDINANCE would require council involvement in future surveillance technology decisions — a city representative said that if a new technology is going to be adopted by the city, that would be brought before the council. THAT ORDINANCE IS NOT YET ADOPTED. The council was not being asked to approve a new surveillance system, but to decide whether these rules should apply before any future systems or capabilities are added.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Elma WA temporary ALPR moratorium (2026)

Elma, WA · Effective September 8, 2026 · City of Elma, Wash. — temporary moratorium on Automated License Plate Reader systems (approved September 8, 2026)

The City of Elma placed a temporary moratorium on automated license plate reader systems at its council meeting on September 8, 2026. A city official summed it up plainly: this is basically the city saying that in the meantime it will not be using automated license plate readers in Elma until it can gather more information and develop a policy at a later date. The moratorium defers to state law on law enforcement's use of ALPRs — specifically RCW 10.130, which the Washington Legislature enacted in 2026 to establish a framework for ALPR systems and the data they collect, and under which the Washington Attorney General must develop and publish statewide model policies no later than July 1, 2027. Elma is a small city in Grays Harbor County and this is a modest measure, but it is a useful example of a pattern: rather than write its own rules from scratch, a small municipality paused deployment and tied its own timeline to the state's, so its eventual policy can be built on the Attorney General's model rather than guessed at. The moratorium was one of six public hearings Elma scheduled for September 2026.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Grass Valley CA ends Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 11, 2026)

Grass Valley, CA · Effective August 11, 2026 · Grass Valley City Council meeting, Aug. 11, 2026: Flock ALPR use indefinitely suspended and contract ended

At its August 11, 2026 meeting, the Grass Valley City Council ended the city's use of Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. The council voted to 'indefinitely suspend' them, and the police department ended its Flock contract. City staff began taking the cameras down that night. The police department pointed to concerns about warrantless data collection, privacy protections, data retention, and how the information could be shared with government and non-government entities. In early September, Flock crews reinstalled some cameras without permission. Police removed them right away, and Flock later confirmed in writing that the contract had ended.

Full entry · News report
Blocked / in litigation
ACLU-WV v. Huntington (Flock contract mandamus)

Huntington, WV · Effective July 16, 2026 · ACLU-WV mandamus petition (relator Gregory Jimison) v. City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell, Cabell County Circuit Court, filed July 16, 2026

On July 16, 2026 — two days after the Huntington City Council approved a $2.1 million Flock Safety surveillance contract 6-4 — the ACLU of West Virginia filed a mandamus petition in Cabell County Circuit Court against the City of Huntington and Mayor Farrell seeking to block the contract. Rather than a constitutional privacy claim, the petition rests on a procurement/property-law theory challenging how the city entered the contract. The relator (the party on whose behalf mandamus is sought) is Huntington resident Gregory Jimison. The case is an early example of surveillance-contract litigation attacking the purchasing process itself.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Minneapolis rejects Skydio DFR contract 6-6 (Jul. 16, 2026)

Minneapolis, MN · Effective July 16, 2026 · Minneapolis City Council 6-6 deadlock, July 16, 2026, rejecting MPD Skydio drone-as-first-responder contract

On July 16, 2026, the Minneapolis City Council deadlocked 6-6 on a proposed contract with drone maker Skydio for a police drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program, killing the deal. The vote followed a 75-day free trial Skydio provided the Minneapolis Police Department in north Minneapolis. Council opposition centered on Skydio's sales to ICE and to Israel, and on data-leak concerns. The rejection ends, for now, MPD's path to a permanent DFR program, making Minneapolis one of the larger US cities to decline a police drone contract after piloting one.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Watchung Hills NJ AI policy 2365 (2026)

Watchung Hills Regional High School District, NJ · Effective July 14, 2026 · Watchung Hills Regional BOE Policy 2365 (adopted 2026-07-14)

Policy 2365 permits but does not mandate generative AI use, leaving per-assignment discretion to the teacher, who must state the permitted level using a three-tier AI Use Scale: Level 0 Red (no AI, individual effort only), Level 1 Yellow (AI-assisted brainstorming, outlining, grammar, clarity, tone and formatting) and Level 2 Green (co-creation with human oversight and demonstrated comprehension). Students must disclose and cite AI use under uniform district citation standards, including the prompt used or a link to the chat transcript where feasible. The policy prohibits submitting fully AI-generated work as one's own, generating deceptive content or imagery, harassment or misrepresentation via AI, and entering personally identifiable information — names, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial data, IEPs, photos or video — into public AI models.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
LAPD lets Flock contract expire (Jul. 11, 2026)

Los Angeles, CA · Effective July 11, 2026 · LAPD Flock Safety contract expiration, July 11, 2026 (138 cameras; largest US department to end a Flock contract)

The Los Angeles Police Department let its contract with Flock Safety expire on July 11, 2026, shutting down its network of 138 Flock license plate reader cameras. Chief information officer Gialamas cited civil-liberties concerns and worries about immigration authorities' access to Flock data. LAPD is the largest US police department to break with Flock. The move caps a national trend: 82 Flock contracts were terminated nationwide between August 2021 and May 2026, 39 of them in the first five months of 2026 alone.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Kaukauna WI Flock non-renewal (announced Jul. 8, 2026)

Kaukauna, WI · Effective July 8, 2026 · Kaukauna, WI Flock Safety contract non-renewal, announced July 8, 2026 (contract expired June 2026)

The city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin announced on July 8, 2026 that it will not renew its contract with Flock Safety; the contract had expired in June. The police chief gave five reasons: fiscal responsibility, the loss of regional partner agencies that had shared the network, the department's inability to audit the system, security concerns, and reported misuse of Flock systems in other jurisdictions. The decision removes Flock license plate reader surveillance from the city and is indexed as a protective decision.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026)

Windsor, CT · Effective July 6, 2026 · Windsor Town Council vote on Flock ALPR cameras (July 6, 2026)

Windsor was the first Connecticut town to drop Flock. After switching its 16 license plate cameras off in February 2026 for a review, the Town Council voted 5-4 on July 6 not to turn them back on, ending the town's Flock contract. The council found the contract did not fit the data-use policy the town had adopted in January. The mayor said the tool matters but 'the vendor is not what we want.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
South Portland ME ends Flock ALPR program (2026)

South Portland, ME · Effective June 11, 2026 · City of South Portland, Me. — Council direction of June 11, 2026 (ALPR program termination)

South Portland ended its automated license plate reader program. Acting on City Council direction given at a June 11, 2026 workshop, the city stopped using Flock ALPR cameras and stopped sharing plate-reader data with other agencies, effective immediately after that meeting. By June 22, 2026 Flock had confirmed that every camera was removed and that South Portland no longer had an active account. The city published the decision and maintains a page on its prior ALPR use and the community discussion that led to the reversal. The action matters beyond South Portland because it is one of the few completed municipal shutdowns of a Flock deployment in Maine, at a moment when local and state efforts to restrict the technology were multiplying: state representatives launched a citizen initiative in Auburn to put a local Flock ban on the November 2026 ballot, and separate legislation was filed to prohibit ALPRs statewide except for Maine Turnpike toll collection. Maine already bars private companies from using ALPRs and bans law-enforcement use of facial recognition.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Berkeley CA "The Berkeley Rule" AI Policy (2026)

Berkeley, CA · Effective March 10, 2026 · City of Berkeley, "The Berkeley Rule" and AI Use Framework for City Government (City Council action March 10, 2026)

On March 10, 2026, the Berkeley City Council adopted "The Berkeley Rule" — a ten-principle framework authored by Councilmember Ben Bartlett to guide ethical, human-centered use of AI in all city operations. Companion AI guidelines from Councilmember Shoshana O'Keefe require departments to apply bias safeguards, maintain data privacy compliance, and ensure human oversight of automated decisions before deployment. The City Manager's office subsequently drafted a formal AI Administrative Regulation implementing these principles.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
San Jose ALPR 30-day retention safeguards (2026)

San Jose, CA · Effective March 10, 2026 · City of San Jose ALPR Use Policy Amendment (City Council unanimous vote, March 10, 2026)

On March 10, 2026, San Jose City Council voted unanimously to tighten safeguards on the city's network of 474 Flock Safety license-plate-reader cameras. The new rules cut the data retention period from one year to 30 days, restrict where cameras can be placed, and limit data-sharing with outside law enforcement agencies to documented criminal investigations. San Jose is the largest U.S. city to have adopted a Government AI Coalition framework, and this vote aligned its ALPR rules with its broader digital-privacy principles.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Mountain View CA cancels Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 24, 2026)

Mountain View, CA · Effective February 24, 2026 · Mountain View City Council vote, Feb. 24, 2026 (unanimous), cancelling the Flock Safety ALPR contract

Mountain View's police chief switched off all 30 of the city's Flock license plate cameras on February 2, 2026, after learning that more than 250 California agencies, and for a few months in 2024 federal agencies, had been able to search the city's data without permission. On February 24, the City Council voted unanimously to cancel the Flock contract. State law bars sharing this data with out-of-state or federal agencies.

Full entry · News report
In effect
DPD FR Policy (2023 update)

Detroit, MI · Effective May 30, 2024 · DPD Directive 307.5 (2023, as updated)

Updated Detroit Police Department policy directive on facial recognition technology issued after the Robert Williams settlement, restricting FR matches as the sole basis for arrest and requiring corroborating evidence and supervisory review.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
DC AI Values Mayor's Order

Washington, DC · Effective February 8, 2024 · D.C. Mayor's Order 2024-028 (Feb. 8, 2024)

Mayor Bowser's order requires DC government agencies to check any AI deployment against six AI Values: clear benefit to the people, safety and equity, accountability, transparency, sustainability, and privacy and cybersecurity. It created an AI Taskforce, set deadlines including a mandatory AI procurement handbook, and requires every agency to submit an AI strategic plan in cohorts through October 2026.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance

San Diego, CA · Effective August 23, 2022 · San Diego Mun. Code ch. 2, art. 10, div. 41 (Ord. O-21492, O-21493) (2022)

San Diego ordinance requiring City Council approval and a published use policy for any city surveillance technology, including the Smart Streetlights and ALPR programs, with a Privacy Advisory Board overseeing impact reports.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Portland City-Government FR Ban

Portland, OR · Effective September 9, 2020 · Portland, Or., city-bureau face recognition ban ordinance (Sept. 9, 2020)

Portland bans all city bureaus, including the Portland Police Bureau, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology. Adopted the same day as the separate private-sector ban; remains in effect as of June 2026.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Orlando Ends Rekognition Pilot

Orlando, FL · Effective July 18, 2019 · City of Orlando memo to City Council, July 18, 2019

City of Orlando and Orlando Police Department formally ended their pilot of Amazon Rekognition real-time facial recognition in 2018 after public backlash; OPD has not redeployed live FR since.

Full entry · Agency page
146 more
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance · Seattle, WA · In effect
Grand Rapids MI ALPR under surveillance policy (2026) · Grand Rapids, MI · In effect
Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban · Cambridge, MA · In effect
Brookline Face Surveillance Ban · Brookline, MA · In effect
Minneapolis FR Ban · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
Madison Face Surveillance Ban · Madison, WI · In effect
Chesterton IN ends Flock ALPR contract (Sept. 2026) · Chesterton, IN · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Milford CT Flock camera moratorium (2026) · Milford, CT · In effect
Ledyard CT ends Flock ALPR use (2026) · Ledyard, CT · In effect
Ocean City MD first municipal AI policy (2026) · Ocean City, MD · In effect
Fort Wayne IN rejects Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 25, 2026) · Fort Wayne, IN · In effect
Newtown CT ALPR pause (2026) · Newtown, CT · In effect
Indianola IA police suspend Flock ALPR cameras (Aug. 2026) · Indianola, IA · In effect
Ralston NE school board staff AI use policy (2026) · Ralston Public Schools, NE · In effect
Cleveland OH Flock 6-month renewal w/ data-sharing restrictions (Jul. 15, 2026) · Cleveland, OH · In effect
Killingworth CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026) · Killingworth, CT · In effect
Huntington WV Flock contract approved 6-4 (Jul. 14, 2026) · Huntington, WV · In effect
Warren MI Flock renewal 4-3 ($132k/2yr, Jul. 14, 2026) · Warren, MI · In effect
Fredericksburg VA Axon AI package w/ Draft One carve-out (Jul. 14, 2026) · Fredericksburg, VA · In effect
Stanton CA authorizes OC Sheriff DFR 3-0-2 (Jul. 13, 2026) · Stanton, CA · In effect
Springfield IL Flock ALPR renewal w/ safeguards (Jul. 7, 2026) · Springfield, IL · In effect
El Cerrito CA Flock non-renewal (May 5, 2026) · El Cerrito, CA · In effect
Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr · Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · In effect
Henrico County VA Schools AI Policy 5-6.6 · Henrico, VA · In effect
Board of Aldermen cancels Flock automated license-plate read · Weston, MO · In effect
Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn · Austin, TX · In effect
Columbus City Schools AI Policy (teacher discretion, plagiarism rules) · Columbus, OH · In effect
Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program · Tampa, FL · In effect
Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program ( · Orlando, FL · In effect
Coralville IA Flock ALPR contract terminated (Feb. 24, 2026) · Coralville, IA · In effect
Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia · Milwaukee, WI · In effect
Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance) · San Francisco Unified School District, CA · In effect
Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual pu · Columbia, MO · In effect
Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia · Cambridge, MA · In effect
San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL · San Marcos, TX · In effect
Township High School District 211 · Palatine, IL · In effect
Greenwich CT Public Schools · Greenwich, CT · In effect
Durham NC Public Schools · Durham, NC · In effect
Iowa City Community School District · Iowa City, IA · In effect
Prince William County VA Public Schools · Manassas, VA · In effect
Prince George's County MD Public Schools · Upper Marlboro, MD · In effect
Newton MA Public Schools · Newton, MA · In effect
Oakland Unified School District · Oakland, CA · In effect
Cleveland Metropolitan School District · Cleveland, OH · In effect
Baltimore City Public Schools · Baltimore, MD · In effect
Fresno USD AI Guidance · Fresno, CA · In effect
AUHSD AI Guidance · Anaheim, CA · In effect
Volusia County FL Schools · DeLand, FL · In effect
Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa · Evanston, IL · In effect
Naperville Community Unit School District 203 · Naperville, IL · In effect
Public Schools of Brookline · Brookline, MA · In effect
Mesa Public Schools AZ · Mesa, AZ · In effect
M-DCPS AI guidance directive (2025) · Miami, FL · In effect
Cherokee County GA School District · Canton, GA · In effect
CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5 · Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) · In effect
Loudoun County VA Public Schools · Ashburn, VA · In effect
Lee's Summit MO · Lees Summit, MO · In effect
Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (o · City and County of Honolulu, HI · In effect
Honolulu Police Department Automated License Plate Reader (A · City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu Police Department), HI · In effect
Culver City CA · Culver City, CA · In effect
Howard County MD Public School System · Ellicott City, MD · In effect
Olathe KS · Olathe, KS · In effect
Eureka CA rejects Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 2025) · Eureka, CA · In effect
San Diego Unified School District · San Diego, CA · In effect
Overland Park KS · Overland Park, KS · In effect
Frederick MD · Frederick, MD · In effect
San Francisco Unified School District · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook · Houston Independent School District, TX · In effect
Arlington VA Public Schools · Arlington, VA · In effect
Princeton NJ Public Schools · Princeton, NJ · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Santa Clara County CA Office of Education · San Jose, CA · In effect
Saint Paul Public Schools · Saint Paul, MN · In effect
Olympia WA · Olympia, WA · In effect
Glendale CA · Glendale, CA · In effect
Forsyth County GA Schools · Cumming, GA · In effect
Minneapolis Public Schools · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
Montgomery County MD Public Schools · Rockville, MD · In effect
Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige · Chappaqua Central School District, NY · In effect
Jefferson County CO Public Schools (Jeffco) · Golden, CO · In effect
CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff · Chicago Public Schools, IL · In effect
Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo · Vancouver Public Schools, WA · In effect
Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5 · Detroit, MI · In effect
Long Beach CA · Long Beach, CA · In effect
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09) · Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · In effect
SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned · Providence, RI · In effect
SF Generative AI Guidelines · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Twin Falls Police Department Automated License Plate Reader · City of Twin Falls (Twin Falls Police Department), ID · In effect
Seattle Generative AI Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief · Peninsula School District, WA · In effect
SPD FR Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
Boston GenAI Guidelines · Boston, MA · In effect
Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized · Portland, OR · In effect
Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
City of Warwick ordinance regulating ALPR technology systems · Warwick, RI · In effect
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera · Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing · Boston, MA · In effect
Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti · Lockport City School District, NY · In effect
Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin · New Orleans, LA · In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri · Oakland, CA · In effect
Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci · Portland, OR · In effect
Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P · Portland, ME · In effect
NYPD POST Act · New York City, NY · In effect
Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston · Boston, MA · In effect
Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur · Springfield, MA · In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol · Cambridge, MA · In effect
Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M · Madison, WI · In effect
Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu · Oakland, CA · In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance · Somerville, MA · In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u · Somerville, MA · In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan · San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · In effect
Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Cambridge, MA · In effect
First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio · City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · In effect
Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance · Yellow Springs, OH · In effect
Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
San Francisco ALPR privacy protections (Sept 2026) · San Francisco, CA · Enacted (not yet in effect)
San José AI Policy · San Jose, CA · In effect
Long Beach GenAI Guidance · Long Beach, CA · In effect
Pittsburgh GenAI Use Policy · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
Wake County NC Public School System · Raleigh, NC · In effect
New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules · New Orleans, LA · In effect
Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety A · Oak Park, IL · Expired
Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety · Santa Cruz, CA · Expired
Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety · Flagstaff, AZ · Expired
Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered · Eugene, OR · Expired
Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a · Denver, CO · Expired
Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR ca · Hillsborough, NC · Expired
Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic li · New York City Public Schools, NY · Proposed / pending
Oklahoma City Council to vote on renewing Flock Safety ALPR · Oklahoma City, OK · Proposed / pending
Harrisonburg VA Flock termination pledge (vote Jul. 28, 2026) · Harrisonburg, VA · Proposed / pending
Binghamton NY Flock termination legislation (in committee, Jul. 2026) · Binghamton, NY · Proposed / pending
Ban biometric recognition in public accommodations (Ban The Scan) · New York City · Proposed / pending
Limit facial recognition in residential buildings (Ban The Scan) · New York City · Proposed / pending
SFPD proposed DGO 10.12 drone policy (2026) · San Francisco, CA · Proposed / pending
Atlanta proposed surveillance technology ordinance (2026) · Atlanta, GA · Proposed / pending
Boston surveillance ordinance amendment proposal (2026) · Boston, MA · Proposed / pending
Portland OR COST surveillance pricing ordinance (proposed 2026) · Portland, OR · Proposed / pending
Lead SD proposed ALPR / mass surveillance ban (2026) · Lead, SD · Proposed / pending
Anchorage AO 2026-108 surveillance technology / ALPR ordinance · Anchorage, AK · Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B25-0114) · Washington, DC · Proposed / pending
LA Council holds LAPD/Axon streetlight ALPR pilot (Oct. 2026) · Los Angeles, CA · Proposed / pending
Grimmett v. Wichita (Flock ALPR suit) · Wichita, KS · Blocked / in litigation
Baltimore FR Ban (Expired) · Baltimore, MD · Expired

All topics · Full directory · Submit a correction