Home › Topics › government use of AI
U.S. AI Laws: government use of AI
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 543 U.S. AI rules on government use of AI across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal government use of AI rules (46)
-
In effect
FAA Part 107 (drones)
United States · Effective 2016-08-29 · 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.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
DOJ ADA Title II Web Rule
United States · Effective 2027-04-24 · 89 Fed. Reg. 31320 (Apr. 24, 2024)
DOJ final rule requiring state and local government web content and mobile apps (including AI-driven services) to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Compliance dates extended to 2027/2028.
-
In effect
OMB M-25-21
United States · Effective 2025-04-03 · OMB Memo M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025)
OMB Memorandum M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025) is the Trump-era replacement for M-24-10. It sets the binding rule for how federal agencies use AI — requiring CAIO designations, AI use inventories, and risk-management practices for rights/safety-impacting AI, with a pro-innovation framing.
-
In effect
OMB M-25-22
United States · Effective 2025-04-03 · OMB Memo M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025)
OMB Memorandum M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025) governs federal AI procurement — superseding M-24-18 — and sets pro-competition, pro-innovation rules for how agencies buy AI systems.
-
In effect
FAA Reauthorization Act 2024 (drones)
United States · Effective 2024-05-16 · Pub. L. No. 118-63
The five-year FAA reauthorization sets the agenda for U.S. drone integration through 2028: it directs the FAA to finalize a Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight rule, expands counter-drone authority for federal and (in pilot programs) state and local agencies, advances Advanced Air Mobility (passenger drones / eVTOLs), and tightens rules on drones produced by countries of concern.
-
In effect
VA Trustworthy AI Framework
United States · Effective 2023-09-22 · VA Directive 1003.2; VA AI Strategy (Sept. 2023)
The VA's Trustworthy AI Framework governs how AI may be used across VA healthcare, benefits, and operations. AI used in benefits or clinical decisions requires human review, bias testing, and an AI use-case inventory submitted to OMB.
-
In effect
Drone Remote ID Rule
United States · Effective 2023-09-16 · 14 C.F.R. Part 89; 86 Fed. Reg. 4390 (Jan. 15, 2021)
Most drones flying in U.S. airspace must broadcast a digital 'license plate' — Remote ID — that includes the drone's ID, location, altitude, and the control station's location, so law enforcement and the public can identify drones in the sky.
-
In effect
DoD Directive 3000.09 (LAWS)
United States · Effective 2023-01-25 · DoDD 3000.09 (2023)
The Defense Department's policy on autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons. Updated in January 2023, it requires every autonomous or semi-autonomous weapon system to allow 'appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force,' undergo a multi-phase senior review before development and fielding, and comply with DoD AI ethical principles.
-
In effect
NHTSA AV federal framework
United States · Effective 2021-06-29 · NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01; 49 U.S.C. § 30166
NHTSA's Standing General Order requires automakers and operators of Level 2 driver-assistance and Level 3–5 automated driving systems to report crashes involving those systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulate vehicle design; NHTSA's voluntary safety guidance (AV 4.0) and the Automated Vehicle Comprehensive Plan provide non-binding policy direction.
-
In effect
Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En
United States · Effective 2025-12-26 · Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States
This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.
-
In effect
EPA AI Strategic Plan
United States · Effective 2025-10-30 · EPA AI Strategy (Oct. 30, 2025)
EPA's AI Strategic Plan governs the use of AI for environmental enforcement, pollution monitoring, satellite imagery analysis, and permit review — establishing risk classifications and human-review requirements for AI in enforcement decisions.
-
In effect
Federal AI Executive Orders
United States · Effective 2025-01-23 · Exec. Order 14179 (Jan. 23, 2025); Exec. Order of Dec. 11, 2025
The current federal posture is deregulatory: EO 14179 (January 2025) revoked the prior AI safety order and directed agencies to remove AI rules seen as barriers to innovation, leading agencies like the EEOC and CFPB to pull AI guidance. A December 11, 2025 executive order directs the DOJ to challenge state AI laws and pushes for a uniform federal framework — but it does not itself preempt state laws, which remain in force absent congressional action or court rulings.
-
In effect
DHS AI Critical Infra Framework
United States · Effective 2024-11-14 · DHS Framework (Nov. 14, 2024)
DHS released a voluntary framework that lays out the responsibilities of cloud providers, AI developers, AI deployers, critical-infrastructure owners, and civil society for the safe and secure use of AI in U.S. critical infrastructure sectors — including grid, water, financial services, and healthcare.
-
Repealed / replaced
OMB M-24-18 (superseded by M-25-22)
United States · Effective 2024-10-03 · OMB M-24-18 (Oct. 3, 2024)
OMB's original federal AI acquisition memo set rules for how agencies buy AI, including performance testing, vendor competition, and IP protections for federal AI use cases. Superseded by M-25-22 in April 2025 but established the federal baseline for AI procurement still in effect through M-25-22.
-
In effect
USDA AI Strategy
United States · Effective 2024-09-30 · USDA AI Strategy (Sept. 30, 2024)
USDA's AI Strategy governs how the department deploys AI across food safety inspection, SNAP eligibility processing, agricultural research, and farm-loan adjudication — with use-case inventory disclosure required by OMB.
-
In effect
GSA AI Procurement Guide
United States · Effective 2024-09-24 · GSA AI Guide for Government (2024)
GSA's AI procurement guide gives federal contracting officers a step-by-step playbook for buying AI — including risk classification, vendor due diligence, evaluation criteria, and contract clauses that comply with OMB M-25-22.
-
In effect
HHS ASPR AI Public Health
United States · Effective 2024-08-28 · HHS ASPR AI Framework (Aug. 28, 2024)
HHS's Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response framework governs AI use in public-health emergencies — including pandemic modeling, vaccine distribution, and resource allocation — with bias auditing and transparency required for algorithms that affect access to scarce medical countermeasures.
-
In effect
NTIA Open Weights Report
United States · Effective 2024-07-30 · NTIA Open Weights Report (July 30, 2024)
NTIA's open-weights report concluded that the federal government should monitor — but not currently restrict — the public release of advanced AI model weights. It established the federal policy baseline that open AI models offer competitive and research benefits that outweigh current risks.
-
In effect
SSA AI Disability Adjudication
United States · Effective 2024-07-30 · SSA AI Governance Framework (July 30, 2024)
Social Security Administration governance for AI used to help adjudicate disability claims — including the Insight tool and Quick Disability Determinations. Human adjudicators must review every AI-assisted determination; AI cannot deny benefits without ALJ or examiner review.
-
In effect
DOE AI Energy Framework
United States · Effective 2024-04-29 · DOE AI for Energy Report (Apr. 29, 2024)
DOE's AI for Energy report sets federal expectations for how utilities, grid operators, and large compute customers use AI for grid operations, demand forecasting, and energy-resource planning — including data centers that strain regional grids.
-
In effect
OPM AI Workforce Guidance
United States · Effective 2024-04-29 · OPM CHCO Memo (Apr. 29, 2024)
OPM AI competency model and skills-based hiring guidance for federal AI/data roles under EO 14110 and the AI in Government Act.
-
In effect
NIST AISI / AISIC
United States · Effective 2024-02-08 · NIST AISI Charter (Feb. 8, 2024)
NIST stood up the U.S. AI Safety Institute and a consortium of AI developers, civil-society groups, and academic labs to develop technical guidance, test methodologies, and safety evaluations for advanced AI models — including red-teaming and dual-use foundation model evaluation.
-
In effect
NSF NAIRR Pilot
United States · Effective 2024-01-24 · NSF NAIRR Pilot (Jan. 24, 2024)
NSF's NAIRR pilot is a two-year initiative providing U.S. academic researchers with shared access to compute, data, and AI models — establishing federal terms for responsible AI research, including bias evaluation, model documentation, and access guardrails.
-
In effect
CISA AI Roadmap
United States · Effective 2023-11-14 · CISA AI Roadmap (Nov. 14, 2023)
CISA's AI Roadmap outlines how the U.S. cybersecurity agency will use AI to defend networks, secure AI systems against attacks, and protect critical infrastructure from AI-enabled threats — including deepfakes and AI-driven cyberattacks on the 16 critical-infrastructure sectors.
-
In effect
NIST AI RMF (voluntary AI risk framework)
United States · Effective 2023-01-26 · NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF 1.0); NIST AI 600-1
A voluntary federal framework that helps organizations identify, measure, and manage risks from AI systems — including bias, safety, and security issues. It creates no legal rights for individuals, but it has become the de facto standard referenced by regulators, several state AI laws, and federal contractors.
-
In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat
United States · Effective 2023-01-01 · TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)
TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.
-
In effect
FY23 NDAA §7224B (civilian AI inventory)
United States · Effective 2022-12-23 · Pub. L. No. 117-263, §7224B (Dec. 23, 2022)
Section 7224B of the FY23 NDAA (Pub. L. 117-263, the James M. Inhofe NDAA for FY23) extended the federal AI use case inventory requirement from EO 13960 to non-CFO Act civilian agencies and required updated procurement guidance from GSA. Quiet but significant — broadened federal AI transparency baseline beyond defense and major civilian agencies.
-
In effect
AI Training Act (2022)
United States · Effective 2022-10-17 · Pub. L. No. 117-207, 136 Stat. 2253 (Oct. 17, 2022)
Public Law 117-207, signed October 17, 2022, requires OMB to provide regular AI training to the federal acquisition workforce. A narrow but enacted federal AI statute — one of only three AI-specific bills passed by Congress before 2024 (alongside the AI in Government Act and National AI Initiative Act).
-
In effect
Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I
United States · Effective 2022-06-01 · Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. International Airports
CBP completed nationwide deployment of Simplified Arrival, which photographs international arrivals at airport inspection points and matches faces against government passport/visa galleries, with opt-out for U.S. citizens.
-
In effect
FY22 NDAA §256 (DoD AI T&E)
United States · Effective 2021-12-27 · Pub. L. No. 117-81, §256 (Dec. 27, 2021)
Section 256 of the FY22 NDAA (Pub. L. 117-81) directed the Department of Defense to develop a comprehensive AI test and evaluation master plan covering data quality, model validation, and adversarial robustness. One of several discrete AI-related provisions across the FY22 NDAA — together they formed the federal government's first comprehensive AI safety-testing framework.
-
In effect
National AI Initiative Act (2020)
United States · Effective 2021-01-01 · Pub. L. No. 116-283, Div. E, 134 Stat. 4523 (Jan. 1, 2021); 15 U.S.C. §§ 9401-9462
Enacted as Division E of the FY21 NDAA (signed by Congressional override Jan. 1, 2021), the National AI Initiative Act codified a coordinated federal AI R&D strategy. It created the National AI Initiative Office (NAIIO) inside OSTP, established AI Research Institutes via NSF, and directed NIST to develop AI risk-management standards — the statutory authority behind NIST AI RMF 1.0.
-
In effect
FY21 NDAA §7224 (AI procurement pilot)
United States · Effective 2021-01-01 · Pub. L. No. 116-283, §7224 (Jan. 1, 2021)
Section 7224 of the FY21 NDAA (William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, Pub. L. 116-283) directed the Department of Defense to establish AI ethics steering committees and procurement pilots. One of the earliest federal AI-specific procurement guardrails, predating the EO 14110 framework by nearly three years.
-
In effect
AI in Government Act (2020)
United States · Effective 2020-12-27 · Pub. L. No. 116-260, Div. U, Title I, §104 (Dec. 27, 2020); 40 U.S.C. §11301 note
Enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 (Dec. 27, 2020), the AI in Government Act of 2020 created the GSA AI Center of Excellence, directed OMB to issue federal AI use guidance, and required OPM to establish federal AI workforce occupational series. One of three enacted pre-2024 federal AI statutes — foundational federal procurement and workforce architecture.
-
In effect
CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
United States · Effective 2020-01-01 · CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports
CBP runs biometric facial comparison at roughly 11 U.S. cruise seaports (including Miami and Port Everglades), scanning disembarking passengers' faces against passport/visa photos with a U.S.-citizen opt-out.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform
United States · FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform tariffs on large-load (data center) transmission cost allocation (Docket RM26-4-000)
FERC ordered PJM and other regional grid operators to revise or defend their tariffs within 60 days to prevent existing ratepayers from being unlawfully charged for transmission upgrades required to serve large new loads such as AI data centers.
-
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.
-
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 U.S. House passed H.R. 7757 (267-117), imposing obligations on AI chatbot providers and online platforms to protect minors, including AI disclosure, crisis resources, use-break prompts, and policies against sexual exploitation and age-restricted content.
-
In effect
2026-10779
United States · NIST 2026-10779
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, previously announced the formation of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium ("AISIC") through a publication dated November 2, 2023 (88 FR 75276). AISIC brought together more than 280 organizations to develop science-based and empirically backed guidelines and standards for artificial intelligence (AI) measurement, laying a foundation for global AI metrology. Through this succeeding notice, NIST is announcing the retitling of AISIC as the NIST Artificial Intelligen
-
In effect
2026-06952
United States · DOC 2026-06952
The Department of Commerce (the Department), through the International Trade Administration (ITA), invites proposals for full- stack American AI export packages from industry-led `pre-set' consortia for designation under the American Artificial Intelligence (AI) Exports Program (the Program) established pursuant to Executive Order 14320, "Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack." A designated package will be presented by U.S. Government representatives as a standing, full-stack American AI export package and may receive priority government advocacy, export licensing review and
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
2026-16371
United States · NIST 2026-16371
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) established and operates the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), which provides the U.S. government repository of standards-based vulnerability management data. NIST seeks stakeholder input on opportunities, challenges, and priorities for modernizing the NVD in an evolving cybersecurity landscape increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-consumable security data. NIST's goal is to improve the NVD's scalability, automation, interoperability, transparency, and utility.
-
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.
-
Repealed / replaced
OMB M-24-10 (rescinded)
United States · Effective 2024-03-28 · OMB Memo M-24-10 (Mar. 28, 2024) — rescinded by M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025)
OMB M-24-10 was the Biden-era binding OMB rule requiring federal agencies to designate Chief AI Officers, inventory AI use cases, and adopt minimum risk-management practices for rights/safety-impacting AI. Rescinded and replaced by M-25-21/22 under the Trump OMB on April 3, 2025.
-
Repealed / replaced
EO 14110 (revoked)
United States · Effective 2023-10-30 · Exec. Order No. 14110, 88 Fed. Reg. 75191 (Nov. 1, 2023) — revoked by EO 14148 (Jan. 20, 2025)
President Biden's EO 14110 was the foundational federal AI executive order, requiring safety reporting from frontier AI developers under the Defense Production Act and directing federal agencies to develop AI policies. Revoked by President Trump's EO 14148 on January 20, 2025.
-
Repealed / replaced
EO 13960 (federal AI use)
United States · Effective 2020-12-03 · Exec. Order No. 13960, 85 Fed. Reg. 78939 (Dec. 8, 2020)
President Trump's December 2020 executive order set nine principles for federal agency AI use (lawful, accurate, safe, understandable, accountable, etc.) and required each agency to publish an annual public inventory of its AI use cases. The annual AI use case inventories continued under EO 14110 (Biden) and EO 14179 (Trump-II) — making EO 13960 the foundational federal-AI-transparency baseline.
-
Repealed / replaced
EO 13859 (American AI Initiative)
United States · Effective 2019-02-11 · Exec. Order No. 13859, 84 Fed. Reg. 3967 (Feb. 14, 2019)
President Trump's February 2019 executive order launched the 'American AI Initiative' — the first federal whole-of-government AI strategy. It directed federal agencies to prioritize AI R&D investment, open government data for AI training, set technical standards (via NIST), and develop the AI workforce. The framework was preserved but reorganized under EO 13960 (2020) and EO 14110 (2023), then carried over into EO 14179 (2025).
-
Expired
Federal facial recognition moratorium (died)
United States · S. 4084 (2020) / S. 2052 (2021) / S. 681 (2023) — never marked up
Sens. Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, and Wyden and Reps. Jayapal, Pressley, and Tlaib first introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act on June 25, 2020 — and reintroduced it in 2021 and 2023. It would have banned all federal agency use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies, and conditioned federal grants on state/local moratoriums. Never received committee action across three congresses.
State government use of AI rules (218)
-
In effect
EBCI Ord. 158 (Data Center Moratorium)
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians · Effective 2026-05-07 · EBCI Ordinance No. 158, Cherokee Code ch. 47E (May 7, 2026)
Indefinite moratorium on data center development on the Qualla Boundary. Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) voted 11-0 to amend the Cherokee Code Chapter 47E, finding that high-impact digital infrastructure 'presents a clear and present danger to the lands and people' of the EBCI.
-
In effect
Sault Tribe (MI) AI Data Center Moratorium
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians · Effective 2026-04-07 · Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board Resolution (Apr. 7, 2026)
Sault Tribe Board of Directors voted unanimously to halt any AI data center development on tribal lands indefinitely, citing strain on local resources and uncertain economic benefit. Came after dozens of community members spoke at public comment.
-
In effect
Seminole Nation (OK) Data Center / GenAI Moratorium
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma · Effective 2026-03-07 · Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Council Resolution (Mar. 7, 2026)
First tribal council in the United States to fully bar inquiries, discussions, and development of any data center or generative AI hyperscale infrastructure within Seminole Nation territory. Unanimous (24-0) vote citing water-contamination and sovereignty concerns.
-
In effect
Tohono O'odham Research Code
Tohono O'odham Nation · Effective 2013-05-23 · 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.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act
New Jersey · Effective 2027-07-20 · Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act, N.J. P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497/S451), signed July 20, 2026
New Jersey Governor Sherrrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act on July 20, 2026, making New Jersey the first state to ban landlords from using algorithmic revenue-management software that coordinates rent-setting using nonpublic competitor pricing and occupancy data. The law, effective July 20, 2027, prohibits residential landlords from using or paying for such software and from receiving pricing recommendations derived from competitors' nonpublic data. RealPage and similar tools are directly targeted.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
AI Safety Measures Act (frontier model audits)
Illinois · Effective 2027-01-01 · IL SB315 (104th General Assembly, 2025-2026)
Illinois is the first state to require independent third-party safety audits of the largest 'frontier' AI developers (companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind). Covered developers — those with >$500M annual gross revenue whose models meet defined compute thresholds — must publish and annually update a frontier AI safety framework addressing catastrophic risks (defined as incidents threatening 50+ deaths, serious injuries, or $1B+ in damages), file transparency reports before deploying new or substantially modified models, report critical safety incidents within 72 hours (24 hours for imminent harm), and protect whistleblowers. Enforced by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security with the Attorney General; civil penalties; no private right of action. Law takes effect January 1, 2027; audit requirements operative January 1, 2028.
-
In effect
NY Hochul EO — Statewide Data Center Moratorium (2026)
New York · Effective 2026-07-14 · New York Governor Hochul Executive Order (July 14, 2026), imposing statewide moratorium on data centers >50 MW
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an Executive Order on July 14, 2026 imposing the first statewide data center moratorium in the United States. The order pauses state permitting for new data centers that plan to draw more than 50 megawatts of electricity at any one time. It also directs the Public Service Commission to conduct a generic environmental and energy review of data center impacts, and directs Empire State Development to create a 'Community Interest Framework' within 60 days to help local governments negotiate with data center developers. The moratorium is separate from the pending legislative bill S10642/A11560 (which Hochul did not sign or veto); the EO accomplishes a moratorium through the Governor's authority over state permitting systems rather than through the DEC permit mechanism proposed in the bill.
-
In effect
PR Ley 116-2026 (AI Bot Disclosure in Gov. Services)
Puerto Rico · Effective 2026-06-18 · Ley Núm. 116-2026 (P. del S. 622, 19th Leg. Assembly); signed June 18, 2026
Puerto Rico's Ley 116-2026 (P. del S. 622) requires PR Executive Branch agencies to notify citizens when they are interacting with an AI system, chatbot, or automated system instead of a human, and guarantees citizens the right to request human intervention at any time. Senate approved June 24, 2025; House approved June 1, 2026; signed into law by Governor Jenniffer González Colón on June 18, 2026. Puerto Rico's second enacted AI-specific law in 2026.
-
In effect
FL Rule 2.515 amendment — AI citation certification (eff. Jun. 15, 2026)
Florida · Effective 2026-06-15 · In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026; eff. June 15, 2026)
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515 so that every person who signs a court filing certifies that the legal authorities cited in it actually exist and are accurately cited — a direct response to AI-hallucinated case citations appearing in filings. Violations can bring sanctions including reprimand, contempt, dismissal of the filing, and fee awards. The statewide rule replaces a patchwork of individual circuit-level AI orders. The amendment does not prohibit using AI; it makes the human signer responsible for verifying whatever AI produces. Opinion issued May 28, 2026; effective June 15, 2026 at 12:01 a.m.
-
In effect
CA EO N-6-26 (AI Workforce)
California · Effective 2026-05-21 · California Executive Order N-6-26 (May 21, 2026)
California's first executive order focused on AI's impact on workers. Directs state agencies, labor groups, employer groups, and AI industry partners to study AI-driven workforce displacement, recommend updates to the California WARN Act, expand dislocated-worker strategies, and identify ways to share AI's economic benefits more broadly with workers. No immediate employer mandates — but creates the framework for future legislation and regulatory action.
-
In effect
Cherokee Nation AI Policy
Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective 2025-08-21 · Cherokee Nation IT AI Policy (Aug. 21, 2025); companion to Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH
Cherokee Nation's first AI policy. Governs responsible and ethical AI use across tribal government, protects Cherokee language and cultural content, and requires AI vendor questionnaires before deployment in tribal systems. Signed by Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr.
-
In effect
Arkansas public entity AI/ADS policy mandate (Act 848, 2025)
Arkansas · Effective 2025-08-03 · Ark. Act 848 / HB 1958 (2025 Regular Session), eff. August 3, 2025
Arkansas Act 848 (HB 1958), signed April 17, 2025 and effective August 3, 2025, requires every state agency, school district, county, municipality, and other public entity in Arkansas to adopt a written policy governing the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making tools. Each policy must: (1) require a human official to make or confirm any final decision affecting citizens; (2) provide staff training on AI tool limitations; (3) make the policy publicly accessible upon request; and (4) prohibit using AI to make decisions based on political affiliation or for unlawful purposes. Passed unanimously — 93-0 in the House, 35-0 in the Senate.
-
In effect
New York LOADinG Act (oversight of state-agency automated decisions)
New York · Effective 2024-12-21 · N.Y. State Technology Law (LOADinG Act); L. 2024, ch. 674 (S7543B)
State agencies in New York must publicly list the automated decision-making tools they use, run and publish impact assessments on them, and keep meaningful human review for tools that hand out public benefits or affect people's rights, safety, or welfare. Agencies also cannot use automated systems to make internal employment decisions that would lay off or displace staff.
-
In effect
An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task
Maine · Effective 2024-12-20 · An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force
Governor Janet Mills' executive order creates a 21-member Maine Artificial Intelligence Task Force to study AI's implications for the state, protect residents from harmful AI uses, and identify opportunities for public-sector AI deployment, with a final report due to the Governor and Legislature by October 31, 2025.
-
In effect
OR PUC Data Center Rate Class
OR · Effective 2024-12-04 · Or. PUC Order No. 24-447
Oregon's Public Utility Commission established a separate large-load rate class — covering data centers, crypto, and AI compute customers — to protect residential customers from cost-shifting and require minimum-take obligations. PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric must apply the new tariffs to incoming AI data centers.
-
In effect
NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective 2024-11-15 · NCAI Resolution #NC-24-008 (2024)
Defines tribal digital sovereignty as tribes' sovereign authority over physical and virtual network infrastructure and data — acquisition, storage, transmission, access, use. Explicitly notes that AI tools can circumvent tribal data collection protocols.
-
In effect
VA SCC Data Center Rate Case
VA · Effective 2024-11-13 · Va. SCC Case No. PUR-2024-00144
Virginia's State Corporation Commission opened a formal investigation into how data center load growth — driven by AI compute demand — should be allocated across electricity rate classes, to keep residential customers from subsidizing AI data centers. Includes minimum-billing demands and special tariffs.
-
In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH
Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective 2024-07-01 · Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2024-07-CTH
Executive order from Principal Chief Hoskin establishing the Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force. Charged with anticipating emerging technologies, safeguarding citizens' sensitive personal data, and defining Cherokee Nation data sovereignty. Produced the AI/data sovereignty/cybersecurity report that led to the 2025 AI policy.
-
In effect
NY ITS AI Policy P24-001
NY · Effective 2024-01-08 · N.Y. ITS Policy NYS-P24-001 (Jan. 8, 2024)
The Hochul administration's statewide Information Technology Services policy on Acceptable Use of AI by New York state agencies. Not a numbered Executive Order, but the binding state-government AI rule. Defines acceptable use cases, prohibits use of public GenAI tools with sensitive data, and requires risk assessments before deployment.
-
In effect
CA EO N-12-23 (GenAI)
CA · Effective 2023-09-06 · Cal. Exec. Order No. N-12-23 (Sept. 6, 2023)
Governor Newsom's EO N-12-23 directs California agencies to study generative AI's risks and uses and to develop a deployment framework. It produced the 2024 GenAI Procurement and Use Guidelines, governing how state agencies acquire and use GenAI tools.
-
In effect
ME LD 1585 (FR limitation)
ME · Effective 2021-10-01 · P.L. 2021 ch. 394 (Me. LD 1585)
Maine LD 1585 is the strictest U.S. state law on government face surveillance — limits use to serious crime investigation via state agency conduit, with logging and a private right of action.
-
In effect
WA SB 6280 (2020, first-in-nation state FR-government law)
WA · Effective 2021-07-01 · RCW Ch. 43.386 (SB 6280, 2020)
Washington SB 6280 (signed March 31, 2020) was the first U.S. state law expressly regulating state and local government use of facial recognition. It requires accountability reports, public notice, warrant requirements for ongoing surveillance, and independent testing for accuracy and bias. Codified at RCW Ch. 43.386. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
VT S.124 (statewide FR moratorium)
VT · Effective 2020-10-07 · 2020 Vt. Acts & Res. No. 166 §14
Vermont S.124 bars Vermont law enforcement from acquiring or using facial-recognition technology absent express legislative authorization — the nation's strongest statewide ban.
-
In effect
NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective 2018-06-04 · NCAI Resolution #KAN-18-011 (2018)
First collective NCAI resolution supporting U.S. tribes' exercise of Indigenous data sovereignty — the principle that tribes have inherent authority over data about their citizens, lands, and resources. Foundation document for tribal restrictions on AI training data and government data sharing.
-
In effect
VA PDD Act (2017 — first)
Virginia · Effective 2017-07-01 · Va. Code §§ 46.2-100, 46.2-908.1:1
Virginia was the first U.S. state to legalize sidewalk delivery robots. PDDs may operate on sidewalks and crosswalks (10 mph cap, 50 lb cargo limit), must carry $100,000 liability insurance and a visible operator ID, and localities may further regulate them. Starship Technologies' deployment at George Mason in 2019 traces back to this law.
-
In effect
UT drone-wildfire law
Utah · Effective 2017-05-09 · Utah Code §§ 65A-3-2.5, 76-6-2410
Utah responded to repeated incidents of hobby drones grounding aerial firefighting by criminalizing drone operation that interferes with manned aircraft fighting wildfires, conducting search-and-rescue, or supporting law enforcement, and authorizing public-safety agencies to disable or neutralize an intruding drone.
-
In effect
Navajo Nation Privacy Act
Navajo Nation · Effective 2005-01-01 · 2 N.N.C. § 81 et seq.
Navajo Nation's foundational privacy law. Regulates access to records held by Navajo government offices, enumerates 22 categories of public records, and establishes privacy protections governing release of citizen and government data — the legal backbone for any AI system processing Navajo citizen data.
-
In effect
Navajo NNHRRB
Navajo Nation · Effective 1996-01-01 · Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board (est. 1996)
Navajo Nation's IRB. All human-subjects research on the Navajo Nation — including any AI or data-driven studies — must be approved by NNHRRB and certify compliance with the Navajo Nation Privacy Act before data collection or publication.
-
In effect
AZ Ct. App. — AI fake citations sanctionable regardless of intent
Arizona · Arizona Court of Appeals published opinion (Judge Brian Furuya), first published AZ opinion on generative AI in court filings; reported July 16, 2026
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued its first published opinion addressing generative AI in court filings, holding that submitting AI-hallucinated (fake) case citations is sanctionable regardless of the filer's intent — an innocent mistake is no defense. The rule applies to lawyers and self-represented (pro se) litigants alike. The court imposed a fee sanction in the underlying case. As a published opinion, it binds Arizona trial courts statewide, putting every filer on notice that AI-generated citations must be verified against real authorities before filing.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
CA AB 2148 no-AI school employees (2026)
CA · Effective 2027-01-01 · Cal. AB 2148 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — signed June 30, 2026; eff. Jan. 1, 2027
California AB 2148, signed by Governor Newsom on June 30, 2026, requires that all employees and independent contractors working directly with students in California public schools be natural persons — human beings — rather than AI systems or automated entities. The bill passed the Assembly 76-0 and the Senate 38-0, reflecting broad bipartisan agreement that student-facing school roles require human accountability. It takes effect January 1, 2027.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Utah HB 276 Provenance Act (AI-content labels + platform provenance duties)
Utah · Effective 2027-01-01 · Utah Code 13-72c-101 to -301, 63A-16-215 (H.B. 276, 2026)
This part of Utah's AI Modifications law requires large generative-AI providers to embed a hidden (latent) disclosure in AI-generated or substantially AI-altered image, audio, and video content. Large online platforms must detect provenance data, let users inspect it, and must not strip compliant provenance or digital signatures. From January 1, 2028, capture-device makers must embed a latent disclosure by default. The law also directs the state CIO to set provenance standards for digital content on public-facing state-agency webpages.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
RAISE Act
New York · Effective 2027-01-01 · RAISE Act, S6953B/A6453B (N.Y. 2025), as amended 2026
New York's frontier AI safety law requires the largest AI developers to publish safety protocols and report serious safety incidents to the state within 72 hours. It creates a new AI oversight office and carries penalties up to $3 million for repeat violations, starting January 1, 2027.
-
In effect
Muscogee (Creek) Nation digital infrastructure task force
Muscogee (Creek) Nation · Effective 2026-07-25 · Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council — Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force (enacted 12-3, July 25, 2026)
The Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council voted 12-3 on July 25, 2026 to establish the Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force. The task force is charged with studying the potential environmental impact, effects on cultural resources and cybersecurity, and data sovereignty implications of AI systems and data center development on reservation lands. Principal Chief David Hill supported the legislation, citing community feedback about data center and AI infrastructure concerns. The task force — which includes the Principal Chief, National Council representatives, the attorney general's office, and the tribal utility authority — has 60 days to report its findings to the National Council (deadline approximately September 23, 2026). This is a study body, not a moratorium; no ban on data centers has been enacted.
-
In effect
PR Ley 140-2026 (Gov AI Cybersecurity Training)
Puerto Rico · Effective 2026-07-23 · Ley Núm. 140-2026 (H.B. 824, 19th Leg. Assembly); signed July 23, 2026
Puerto Rico Law 140-2026 amends the Puerto Rico Government Cybersecurity Law to require that its continuing-education program for government information officers and public servants include artificial intelligence — alongside privacy, systems security, data management, cyberattack prevention, and responsible use of new technologies. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González Colón on July 23, 2026. Puerto Rico's third enacted AI-specific law in 2026.
-
In effect
Virginia IVO AI Safety Study (SB 384/HB 797, 2026)
Virginia · Effective 2026-07-01 · 2026 Va. Acts, SB 384 / HB 797 (JCOTS IVO Study Directive), eff. July 1, 2026
Virginia enacted SB 384 and companion HB 797 on April 13, 2026, directing the Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) to study the feasibility of a framework for Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) — independent bodies that would assess whether AI models and applications meet safety standards designed to prevent personal injury and property damage. This is a study directive only; it does not create any compliance obligations for AI developers or deployers today. If JCOTS recommends a framework, future legislation could require IVO certification before deployment of high-risk AI systems in Virginia.
-
In effect
NC AI Strategic Roadmap (released Jul. 1, 2026)
North Carolina · Effective 2026-07-01 · North Carolina AI Strategic Roadmap (AI Leadership Council under Executive Order 24), released July 1, 2026
North Carolina released its AI Strategic Roadmap on July 1, 2026. Developed by the AI Leadership Council that Governor Josh Stein created under Executive Order 24, the roadmap lays out 17 goals organized around three priorities: protecting North Carolinians from AI harms, preparing the workforce for AI, and using AI to improve government service delivery. As a published strategy document, it guides state agency AI adoption and safeguards but does not itself impose binding legal requirements.
-
In effect
Idaho S1227 (AI in K-12 schools)
Idaho · Effective 2026-07-01 · Idaho SB 1227 (2026)
Idaho directs the State Department of Education to build a statewide framework for generative AI use in K-12 schools, emphasizing human oversight, accessibility, student privacy, and academic integrity. Each school district and public charter school must adopt its own generative-AI use policy aligned with that framework. AI education-technology vendors must disclose their use of machine learning, predictive analytics, and generative AI and provide data-protection assurances.
-
In effect
Indiana SB 256 (foreign-adversary AI vendor & student rules)
Indiana · Effective 2026-07-01 · Ind. Senate Enrolled Act 256 (2026 Reg. Sess.) / Pub. L. 131-2026, eff. July 1, 2026
Indiana requires new or renewed government contracts for technological products or services — a category that expressly includes artificial intelligence, information systems, and surveillance technology — to include a certification that the contractor and its subcontractors are not 'prohibited persons,' meaning businesses controlled by or domiciled in a designated foreign adversary such as China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. The law also restricts public colleges from enrolling students from those countries in certain qualifying (including AI) programs until a foreign-influence and research-security review is completed.
-
In effect
Utah HB 273 (AI in school core standards + required LEA AI policies)
Utah · Effective 2026-07-01 · Utah Code 53E-4-202, 53G-7-228 to -229, 53G-7-1401 to -1403 (H.B. 273, 2026)
Utah requires the State Board of Education to add AI to its core computer science standards and publish a model policy on classroom AI use, and every local education agency must adopt an AI-use policy based on that model. The model policy bars AI from independently grading work or making high-stakes student decisions, requires written notice to parents when instruction uses generative AI, and prohibits uses like biometric surveillance. An LEA that fails to adopt the required policies risks losing certain state funding.
-
In effect
Virginia SB 394 (AI-in-schools guidance, board policies, pilot)
Virginia · Effective 2026-07-01 · Va. Code 22.1-20.2:1 (new); SB 394 (2026)
Virginia directed its Department of Education to study how AI is currently used in public-school instruction and publish guidance for safe, ethical, and equitable AI use in the classroom, addressing student data privacy, teacher training, transparency, and bias. Each local school board must adopt aligned policies. The law also creates an 'AIS Innovation in Education' pilot program, prioritizing high-poverty, rural, and under-resourced divisions, sunsetting July 1, 2030.
-
Proposed / pending
Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decis
Colorado · Effective 2026-06-30 · Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act and Chatbot Safety Act
The Colorado Attorney General's Office opened pre-rulemaking to write rules implementing the state's Automated Decision-Making Technology Act (algorithmic-discrimination protections for high-risk AI) and the Chatbot Safety Act, taking public comment through July 13, 2026 ahead of the laws' January 1, 2027 effective date.
-
In effect
WA SB 5982 (Data Center / Clean Energy)
Washington · Effective 2026-06-11 · WA SB 5982, Chapter 181, Laws of 2026 (2025-26 Leg. Sess.)
Washington bill that closes a loophole in the state's 100% clean energy law (Clean Energy Transformation Act) so that large customers — especially data centers — must meet the same carbon-neutrality and renewable-energy deadlines as electric utilities. Signed by Governor Ferguson on 2026-03-24 as Chapter 181, Laws of 2026; in effect since 2026-06-11.
-
In effect
Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence
Vermont · Effective 2026-05-18 · Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force
Governor Phil Scott established the Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force to assess how AI is reshaping the state economy and recommend, within 90 days, up to five ways state government could adopt AI to better serve the public.
-
In effect
Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for D
Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric) · Effective 2026-05-07 · Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for Data Centers
The Oregon PUC approved a large-load tariff for data centers exceeding 20 MW that requires customers to fund 100% of distribution upgrades, sign 10-to-30-year contracts, pay minimum demand charges at 90% of contracted capacity, and adds a 1 cent/kWh surcharge on projects over 100 MW to offset residential and low-income customer costs. In July 2026 the PUC approved PGE's compliance rate filing implementing the framework: data-center customers' rates rise about 29.7% while residential bills drop about 1.3%.
-
In effect
Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-20
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · Effective 2026-04-30 · Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-2025-3054271)
The Pennsylvania PUC adopted a first-of-its-kind model tariff framework requiring large load customers exceeding 50 MW individually or 100 MW in aggregate (e.g., data centers) to bear interconnection upgrade costs, post financial assurances, and follow a public application queue so existing ratepayers are not saddled with their costs.
-
In effect
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy
State University of New York (SUNY) · Effective 2026-04-30 · SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy
SUNY's Board of Trustees approved a systemwide AI policy requiring all 64 campuses to adopt AI governance, bias evaluation, data-privacy safeguards, and heightened oversight of high-risk systems affecting students by December 31, 2026.
-
In effect
We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Ord
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies) · Effective 2026-04-24 · We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Order
The Wisconsin PSC approved but overhauled We Energies' data center tariff, lowering the eligibility threshold from 500 MW to 100 MW, extending the minimum contract term to 15 years, and removing a capacity-only option so data centers pay their full share and existing customers are not subsidizing them.
-
In effect
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
California · Effective 2026-03-30 · Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
This newer California executive order directs DGS and CDT to develop trust-and-safety certifications for state AI contracting (covering CSAM/NCII, harmful bias, and civil-rights violations), reforms to bar contracting with entities that unlawfully undermine privacy or civil liberties, and CDT guidance on watermarking AI-generated media.
-
In effect
GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy
Maine · Effective 2026-03-06 · GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy
The Maine Office of Information Technology's generative AI policy (superseding the earlier GenAI moratorium) guides responsible use of GenAI on state IT infrastructure, requiring compliance with data classification standards, prohibiting confidential data inputs to public AI systems, and holding users accountable for AI outputs.
-
In effect
AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Go
Texas · Effective 2026-03-01 · AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Governance Standards (1 TAC Chapter 219)
Under Government Code 2054.702 and SB 1964, the Texas Department of Information Resources adopted a statewide AI code of ethics built on seven principles (human oversight, fairness, accuracy, redress, transparency, privacy, security) plus minimum risk-management standards for heightened-scrutiny AI systems.
-
In effect
Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: G
Utah State Board of Education (USBE) · Effective 2026-03-01 · Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: Guidance on the Use of AI in Our Schools
Utah's state board of education issued an AI framework guiding students, staff, and communities on responsible and prohibited use of generative AI, with special considerations for safety, security, and privacy.
-
In effect
Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence
Connecticut · Effective 2026-02-25 · Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence
Connecticut AG William Tong issued a memorandum explaining how existing Connecticut civil rights, data privacy and security, consumer protection (unfair trade practices), and antitrust laws already apply to AI systems, signaling enforcement priorities.
-
In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH (Data Center Task Force)
Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective 2026-02-24 · Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2026-02-CTH (Feb. 24, 2026)
Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. signed Executive Order 2026-02-CTH on February 24, 2026, establishing a nine-member task force to study the environmental and economic impacts of data center development on the Cherokee Nation Reservation. The task force — formally titled the 'Principal Chief's Task Force to Study the Impact of Data Centers on the Economy and Natural Environment of the Cherokee Nation Reservation' — is led by Secretary of Natural Resources Christina Justice, with Chief of Staff Dr. Corey Bunch serving as co-chair and CIO Paula Starr as a member. The task force was charged with assessing the current and projected scope of data center construction on the 7,000-square-mile reservation, environmental concerns (including water and energy impacts), economic opportunities and detriments for citizens, and tribal and state/federal policy advocacy options. The report was due to Principal Chief Hoskin by June 30, 2026; its public release has not been confirmed as of July 11, 2026.
-
In effect
New York S8831 (shields public employees from AI displacement)
New York · Effective 2026-02-13 · N.Y. S8831 (2025)
This law amends New York's education, state technology, and civil service laws to protect public employees from harms caused by artificial intelligence systems. It guards against AI being used in ways that would impair workers' collective-bargaining rights, lead to their discharge or displacement, transfer their job duties to an AI system, or cut their hours, wages, or benefits.
-
In effect
Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation
Utah · Effective 2026-01-17 · Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nationwide Bipartisan AI Task Force
Utah's Attorney General co-launched a nationwide bipartisan attorneys-general task force to identify emerging AI harms and develop safeguards AI developers should follow to protect the public, especially children.
-
In effect
Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI C
Arizona · Effective 2026-01-15 · Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot (Grok)
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes opened an investigation into whether X's Grok AI chatbot violated Arizona law after reports it was used to generate and distribute harmful content, including child sexual abuse imagery and non-consensual exploitative images.
-
In effect
Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration o
Missouri · Effective 2026-01-13 · Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration of Artificial Intelligence within State Government Operations)
Governor Mike Kehoe ordered the Office of Administration to develop a strategic framework for integrating AI into Missouri state government, prioritizing data privacy and security, human decision-making, transparency, accountability, and data quality.
-
In effect
AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools
Ohio Department of Education and Workforce · Effective 2026-01-06 · AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools
Ohio's education department released a state model AI policy that all public, community, and STEM schools must adopt (or customize) a formal AI policy from by July 1, 2026, covering student/staff use, privacy, ethics, and vendor evaluation.
-
In effect
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Penal Code 13663 (SB 524, 2025)
This law brings transparency to the use of AI in police reports. When a law enforcement report is generated wholly or partly by AI, the report must carry a per-page disclosure identifying the AI program used, along with the officer's signature verifying they reviewed it and that the facts are true. Agencies must keep the first AI-generated draft and an audit trail showing the user, data, and media involved, and vendors are barred from sharing or selling agency data except for the agency's own purposes.
-
In effect
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · SB 53 (Stats. 2025)
The first US frontier-AI safety law in effect: the largest AI model developers must publish safety frameworks and transparency reports, report critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers who raise catastrophic-risk concerns.
-
In effect
TRAIGA
Texas · Effective 2026-01-01 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 552; Tex. HB 149 (89th Leg., R.S., 2025), TRAIGA
Texas's AI law bans specific harmful uses of AI — intentional discrimination, behavioral manipulation encouraging self-harm or crime, social scoring by government, and certain biometric identification without consent — and requires government agencies to disclose AI interactions to consumers. It includes a regulatory sandbox and preempts local AI ordinances.
-
In effect
Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell
California Department of Education · Effective 2026-01-01 · Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intelligence in California Public Schools
California's education department issued voluntary guidance for K-12 districts covering human-centered AI, AI literacy, equitable access, academic integrity, data privacy (FERPA/COPPA/CCPA/SOPIPA), and procurement.
-
In effect
Guam P.L. 38-77 (AI Task Force)
Guam · Effective 2025-12-16 · P.L. 38-77 (Bill 64-38 (COR)), 38th Guam Leg. (Dec. 16, 2025)
Guam's first AI law. Creates the Guam AI Regulatory Task Force charged with developing an ethical and accountable framework for AI across government, education, public safety, and the economy. Signed by Acting Governor Joshua Tenorio December 16, 2025.
-
In effect
AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter
Pennsylvania · Effective 2025-12-10 · AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter to A.I. Software Companies Demanding Safeguards to Protect Vulnerable Residents from Harmful Interactions with Bots
Pennsylvania AG Dave Sunday led a coalition of 42 state attorneys general demanding that major AI chatbot companies implement testing, recall procedures, and consumer warnings to protect vulnerable users, especially children, from harmful bot interactions.
-
In effect
2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory
Connecticut · Effective 2025-12-08 · 2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory
The Department of Administrative Services Bureau of Information Technology Solutions publishes the state's annual, statutorily mandated inventory of AI systems used by state agencies, cataloging each system's vendor, capabilities, whether it informs decisions, and whether an impact assessment was done.
-
In effect
Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence
Mississippi · Effective 2025-11-25 · Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence
Mississippi ITS adopted an AI acceptable-use policy (implementing EO 1584) setting ten guiding principles including human oversight of AI decisions, bias testing, data-protection restrictions, and a prohibition on deepfakes and using AI for final sensitive decisions.
-
In effect
New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Bienn
Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia) · Effective 2025-11-25 · New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Biennial Review (Case PUR-2025-00058)
The Virginia SCC created a new GS-5 rate class (effective Jan 1, 2027) for customers exceeding 25 MW with load factor above 75%, requiring 14-year contracts and minimum demand charges of 85% for transmission/distribution and 60% for generation so data centers pay their own costs.
-
In effect
Artificial Intelligence Guideline
North Dakota · Effective 2025-11-17 · Artificial Intelligence Guideline
North Dakota Information Technology's guideline outlines best practices for secure, private, and ethical use of AI, supplementing the state's AI Policy and requiring GRC risk assessment before AI business use.
-
In effect
AG Jennings Completes Review of OpenAI Recapitalization (Sta
Delaware · Effective 2025-10-28 · AG Jennings Completes Review of OpenAI Recapitalization (Statement of No Objection with Governance Commitments)
Exercising Delaware's charitable/nonprofit oversight authority over OpenAI, Inc. (a Delaware nonprofit), AG Kathy Jennings issued a Statement of No Objection to OpenAI's recapitalization only after securing binding commitments keeping the nonprofit in control of the new public benefit corporation and prioritizing AI safety over financial interests.
-
In effect
Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126:
Kentucky · Effective 2025-10-06 · Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: Artificial Intelligence Policy
Kentucky's Commonwealth Office of Technology enterprise AI policy bans state agency use of high-risk AI systems, mandates human review before any consequential decision, and requires transparency disclaimers, bias controls, privacy protections, training, and vendor AI-use disclosure.
-
In effect
Montana HB 178 (limits on government AI use)
Montana · Effective 2025-10-01 · Mont. HB 178 (2025) (Ch. 427); codified in Title 2, MCA
Montana restricts how state and local government use AI. A government entity or state officer may not use an AI system to manipulate a person or group, to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact, for a malicious purpose, or to surveil public spaces (with narrow exceptions). Government must disclose AI-produced material that no qualified human reviewed and disclose public-facing AI interfaces. Any AI recommendation or decision that could affect a person's rights, duties, or privileges must be reviewed by a qualified human who can reject or change it.
-
In effect
Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use o
Louisiana · Effective 2025-09-29 · Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use of AI
Governor Jeff Landry's amended executive order requires Chief Information Officer or agency-head approval before any state agency uses AI, pauses AI procurement until December 15, 2025, mandates AI acquisition/information-management policies and an inventory of AI contracts and use cases, and restricts sensitive data inputs pending those policies.
-
In effect
Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy
Louisiana · Effective 2025-09-29 · Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy
Louisiana's Office of Technology Services policy governs employee AI use, prohibiting entry of confidential/restricted state data into commercial AI, barring AI from making independent consequential decisions, and requiring human verification, AI-content labeling, and use of only state-approved systems.
-
In effect
Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging
Idaho · Effective 2025-09-08 · Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging Tech Companies to Stop the Spread of Deepfake Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery
The Idaho Attorney General joined a 47-state coalition demanding that search engines and payment platforms adopt safeguards to curb AI-generated deepfake nonconsensual intimate imagery.
-
In effect
Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Int
North Carolina · Effective 2025-09-02 · Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence That Benefits All North Carolinians
Governor Josh Stein's order establishes an AI Leadership Council and an AI Accelerator within NCDIT and requires each Cabinet agency to form an AI Oversight Team and submit AI use cases for risk assessment.
-
In effect
TX Government AI Governance (Subchapter S / SB 1964)
Texas · Effective 2025-09-01 · Tex. S.B. 1964, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Tex. Gov't Code ch. 2054, subch. S
Texas now requires state agencies to catalog the artificial intelligence systems they use and to give extra review to higher-risk systems that influence consequential decisions about people. The state's Department of Information Resources must publish a statewide AI code of ethics and set baseline rules for managing AI risk and governance, and agencies must run assessments on their highest-scrutiny systems. When a member of the public interacts with a government AI system, the agency has to tell them they are dealing with AI. If an agency or its vendor breaks these rules, the attorney general can go to court to stop the violation and can void a vendor's contract that caused it.
-
In effect
Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spre
Illinois · Effective 2025-08-26 · Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spread of Deepfake Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery
The Illinois Attorney General joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general pressing search engines and payment platforms to curb AI-generated deepfake nonconsensual intimate imagery, referencing Illinois's AI-generated CSAM and NCII law.
-
In effect
Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Compa
Tennessee · Effective 2025-08-25 · Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Companies End Predatory AI Interactions with Kids
Tennessee's Attorney General led a bipartisan coalition of 44 states in a demand letter to 12 major AI companies to implement safeguards against sexualized AI chatbot interactions with minors, applying consumer-protection authority to AI harms.
-
In effect
Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as St
Iowa · Effective 2025-08-19 · Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as Students Head Back to School
The Iowa Attorney General issued a consumer alert warning parents and schools that AI-generated deepfake images used to harass or bully students are criminal acts under state and federal law.
-
In effect
Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character.
Texas · Effective 2025-08-18 · Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character.AI for Misleading Children with Deceptive AI-Generated Mental Health Services
The Texas Attorney General issued Civil Investigative Demands to Meta AI Studio and Character.AI to determine whether their AI chatbots deceptively marketed themselves as mental-health tools to children in violation of Texas consumer-protection law.
-
In effect
Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)
Montana · Effective 2025-08-11 · Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)
Gov. Gianforte's order directs the Department of Labor & Industry and the State Workforce Innovation Board to expand AI training, integrate AI tools into workforce services, and prioritize AI-readiness in state talent-development programs.
-
In effect
Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an
Michigan · Effective 2025-08-09 · Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines and Responsibilities
Michigan's Department of Technology, Management and Budget issued guidelines establishing responsibilities for ethical AI use across state agencies, requiring data-classification awareness and human-in-the-loop review of AI-generated content.
-
In effect
ND HB 1613 (drone evidence limits extended to robots; no armed police robots)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code ch. 29-29.4; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1613)
North Dakota expanded its surveillance-by-drone chapter so the same rules now apply to 'robots' — powered, AI-driven machines or systems that can operate on their own. Information that law enforcement gathers using a robot is subject to the same evidentiary limits that already apply to information gathered by a drone. The law also bars law enforcement from using a robot or a drone to deploy a weapon or otherwise use force.
-
In effect
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, an
Idaho · Effective 2025-08-01 · Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, and Guideline
Idaho ITS's enterprise AI governance policy establishes a risk-classification framework, oversight responsibilities, and implementation requirements for AI use across state agencies and departments.
-
In effect
Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artif
Virginia · Effective 2025-07-11 · Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) Empowered Statewide Regulatory Review
Governor Youngkin's order launches a pilot using agentic AI to scan the Commonwealth's regulations and guidance documents for redundant or outdated requirements and directs executive-branch agencies to incorporate AI into their periodic regulatory reviews.
-
In effect
AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA)
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (AEP Ohio) · Effective 2025-07-09 · AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA)
The Ohio PUC adopted a settlement creating a new data center customer class for loads of 25 MW or greater, requiring those customers to pay for at least 85% of contracted capacity for a minimum 12-year term plus exit fees and financial assurances to prevent cost-shifting to other customers.
-
In effect
Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approv
Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) · Effective 2025-07-03 · Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approved-tools policy
Minnesota State issues systemwide generative-AI guidance authorizing secured tools like Microsoft Copilot, blocking services such as Otter.AI and Fireflies.AI for security, and ensuring system data is not used to train external AI models.
-
In effect
Nevada AB 406 (no AI replacing school counselors)
Nevada · Effective 2025-07-01 · 2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 2 (amending NRS ch. 391)
Nevada prohibits public schools, including charter schools, from using artificial intelligence to perform the mental-health-related functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist, or school social worker. The law directs the Nevada Department of Education to develop a policy governing how those school employees may use AI when providing therapy, counseling, or other mental or behavioral health services to students.
-
In effect
Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole)
Virginia · Effective 2025-07-01 · Va. Code 19.2-11.14; HB 1642 (2025), Va. Acts c. 637
Virginia requires that key criminal-justice decisions be made by a human being, even when an AI tool produces a recommendation or prediction. The rule covers pretrial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, and rehabilitation. No such decision may be made without a human decision-maker, and any AI-generated recommendation is subject to any challenge or objection allowed by law.
-
In effect
New York A433 (state agencies must list AI employment tools)
New York · Effective 2025-07-01 · N.Y. State Technology Law / Civil Service Law; L. 2025, ch. 96 (A433)
Any New York State agency that uses an automated tool to help make employment decisions must publicly list those tools, and the state's IT office must keep a public inventory of state-agency AI systems that affect the public. The law also protects state workers' existing collective-bargaining rights and bars using AI to displace them.
-
In effect
Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001)
Georgia · Effective 2025-07-01 · Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001)
The Georgia Technology Authority's enterprise standard requires executive-branch agencies to obtain GTA approval before procuring or using generative AI, keep humans in the loop reviewing GenAI output, disclose GenAI use, bar entry of PII/PHI without approval, maintain a GenAI inventory, and report incidents within 48 hours.
-
In effect
New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance
Alaska · Effective 2025-06-18 · New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance
Alaska's Office of Information Technology issued guidance for state employees using Microsoft 365 Copilot and Teams AI features, requiring them to review AI-generated content for accuracy and privacy, follow the ISP-172 acceptable-use policy, and recognize that Copilot-generated records may be subject to disclosure.
-
In effect
State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Ve
New Mexico · Effective 2025-06-01 · State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Version 1.0)
New Mexico's Department of Information Technology issued a signed policy leveraging the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to govern how executive agencies plan, develop, and deploy generative AI, including protection of non-public data.
-
In effect
Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off)
Utah · Effective 2025-05-07 · Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 180; Utah Code 53-25-601, 53-25-602
Utah requires every law enforcement agency to adopt a written policy governing employee use of generative AI. Any police report or law enforcement record created wholly or partly with generative AI must contain a disclaimer that it includes AI-generated content, and the author must certify they personally read and reviewed it for accuracy.
-
In effect
The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation
Maryland · Effective 2025-05-01 · The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation Guidance (Version 1.0)
Maryland's Department of Information Technology guidance operationalizes the state's Responsible AI Policy, requiring agencies to designate an AI Lead, submit AI use cases through a risk-based intake process, complete Algorithmic Impact Assessments for high-risk systems, and document AI systems in a public inventory.
-
In effect
New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0
New Mexico Public Education Department · Effective 2025-05-01 · New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0
New Mexico's education department published a K-12 AI handbook covering AI literacy, guiding principles for ethical use, and a framework for responsible AI integration in classrooms.
-
In effect
MT Right to Compute Act
Montana · Effective 2025-04-17 · Mont. SB 212, 69th Leg., 2025 Reg. Sess., signed Apr. 17, 2025
Montana became the first state to enshrine a constitutional right to compute, guaranteeing residents the right to own and use computational resources including AI hardware, software, and data processing tools. Any government regulation restricting these rights must meet a strict scrutiny standard.
-
In effect
Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence
University System of Georgia (USG) · Effective 2025-04-16 · Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts
The USG Board of Regents adopted a policy requiring all 26 institutions to establish ethical, responsible, and secure AI-use policies integrated into their academic-integrity codes.
-
In effect
KS AI Foreign Platforms Ban
Kansas · Effective 2025-04-08 · 2025 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 84 (Sub. HB 2313), approved Apr. 8, 2025
Kansas prohibits state employees from using AI platforms controlled by foreign adversary countries — including DeepSeek and any Chinese-owned AI models — on state-issued devices and networks. Agencies must deactivate and delete any existing accounts with such platforms.
-
In effect
Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial I
Illinois · Effective 2025-04-01 · Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence
The Illinois DoIT policy governs how state agencies under the Governor's jurisdiction may develop, deploy, and use AI systems, requiring each utilizing agency to designate an AI point of contact and inventory deployed AI systems within 30 days.
-
In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE P
Iowa · Effective 2025-03-31 · Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE PY-AI)
Iowa's enterprise generative-AI policy, issued under Iowa Administrative Code 129-8.4(8B), sets minimum requirements and prohibited uses for generative AI, mandating human review of AI outputs and disclosure of AI-generated code.
-
In effect
Kentucky SB 4 (AI Governance)
Kentucky · Effective 2025-03-24 · 2025 Ky. Acts (SB 4)
Kentucky SB 4 establishes an AI governance framework for state government — agencies need approval before deploying AI, must conduct risk assessments, disclose AI use in decisions, and keep human oversight for consequential decisions. It also bans undisclosed AI-generated content falsely depicting people in political communications, with a civil remedy for those depicted.
-
In effect
State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Se
Wisconsin · Effective 2025-03-10 · State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Security Policy (includes AI-use provisions)
The Wisconsin Department of Administration's enterprise technology policy governs acceptable use of state IT resources by executive-branch employees and incorporates guidance on the use of artificial intelligence.
-
In effect
Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reac
Utah Public Service Commission (Rocky Mountain Power / PacifiCorp) · Effective 2025-03-01 · Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reaching 100 MW (per SB 132)
Following Utah SB 132 (2025), the Utah PSC opened an investigation into a flexible large-load tariff for Rocky Mountain Power covering facilities expected to reach at least 100 MW within five years, allowing such facilities to procure their own supply if serving them would require major ratepayer-funded upgrades.
-
In effect
WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2)
West Virginia Department of Education · Effective 2025-03-01 · WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2)
West Virginia's education department published AI guidance supporting superintendents, district staff, and educators in safely integrating generative AI into instruction, administration, and district operations aligned with state board policies.
-
In effect
UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Gener
University of Tennessee System · Effective 2025-03-01 · UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Generative AI
The University of Tennessee System's acceptable-use policy for generative AI bars entering FERPA/HIPAA-protected and confidential data into AI tools and requires independent verification and disclosure of AI-generated content.
-
In effect
LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · Effective 2025-02-27 · LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar scanners plus AI-CCTV mobile detection)
LA Metro's board voted 10-0 to expand a one-year weapons-detection pilot using AI-powered pillar scanners and AI-CCTV mobile detection to identify concealed weapons on riders at busy stations and on buses.
-
In effect
I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (C
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power) · Effective 2025-02-19 · I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (Cause No. 46097)
The Indiana URC approved a settlement modifying Indiana Michigan Power's Industrial Power Tariff for facilities of at least 70 MW (or 150 MW aggregated), requiring 12-year contracts, minimum monthly demand charges of 80% of contract capacity, exit fees, and collateral so grid-upgrade costs fall on data centers rather than existing ratepayers.
-
In effect
Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)
Oregon · Effective 2025-02-11 · Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)
Oregon Enterprise Information Services establishes enterprise-wide governance for generative and agentic AI across executive-branch agencies, requiring AI adoption plans, human review of outputs, approval of new AI uses, and use of only approved tools.
-
In effect
Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analyt
Arkansas · Effective 2025-02-07 · Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analytics Center of Excellence
The Arkansas AI and Analytics Center of Excellence (Department of Shared Administrative Services) delivered the governor an initial report recommending statewide AI governance, a Chief AI Officer, NIST-based evaluation of AI systems, updated procurement policies to safeguard citizen data, and AI-literacy training for state employees.
-
In effect
CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide
California State University (CSU System) · Effective 2025-02-04 · CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide ChatGPT Edu deployment
CSU announced a first-in-the-nation systemwide AI initiative giving all 23 campuses' 460,000+ students and 63,000+ faculty/staff access to ChatGPT Edu plus AI Commons training and academic-use resources.
-
In effect
Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2)
Alabama · Effective 2025-01-31 · Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2)
Alabama's Office of Information Technology issued a NIST AI RMF-based acceptable-use policy requiring human review of GenAI output, annotation of AI-generated code/output, prohibition of confidential-data inputs, and OIT authorization before contractors use GenAI in state systems.
-
In effect
Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Cust
Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power) · Effective 2025-01-23 · Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Customers Over 100 MW
The Georgia PSC unanimously approved a rule allowing Georgia Power to bill new customers using more than 100 MW under special terms, requiring them to cover transmission and distribution construction costs, permitting contracts up to 15 years, and mandating PSC review of each large-load contract.
-
In effect
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o
California · Effective 2025-01-13 · Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI
California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued two legal advisories clarifying that entities developing, selling, or using AI must comply with existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, competition, data-privacy, and election-misinformation laws, plus new AI laws effective January 1, 2025, with a second advisory targeting healthcare entities.
-
In effect
Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey La
New Jersey · Effective 2025-01-09 · Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
AG Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights issued guidance clarifying that the NJ Law Against Discrimination applies to algorithmic discrimination from AI and automated decision tools, so covered entities can be liable for disparate treatment or disparate impact even without intent.
-
In effect
Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboratio
Mississippi · Effective 2025-01-08 · Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboration and Harnessing Artificial Intelligence)
Governor Tate Reeves directed the Department of Information Technology Services to inventory all state-agency AI, evaluate existing AI processes and procurement guidelines, and develop statewide responsible-AI policy recommendations.
-
In effect
California SB 896 (state AI risk analysis + AI disclaimers on gov communications)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · SB 896, Stats. 2024 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act)
This law directs California's Office of Emergency Services to study the threats that generative AI could pose to the state's critical infrastructure, including mass-casualty risks, and report a summary to the Legislature each year. It also requires any state agency that uses generative AI to communicate with people about government services to add a disclaimer that AI generated the message and explain how to reach a human state employee.
-
In effect
Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc
Texas A&M University System · Effective 2024-12-10 · Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligence
The Texas A&M University System's AI regulation governs all AI activities system-wide, requiring AI inventories, data classification, bias audits, safeguards against algorithmic discrimination, and academic-integrity citation rules.
-
In effect
Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Inte
Nevada · Effective 2024-11-27 · Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Nevada State Government Executive Branch
The Nevada CIO-signed policy sets minimum standards for responsible, ethical, and transparent AI use across executive-branch agencies, requiring risk-based assessments, procurement/contract controls, and continuous monitoring of AI tools.
-
In effect
Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K
Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) · Effective 2024-08-28 · Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K-12 Schools
Louisiana's education department, acting on its AI Task Force recommendations, released K-12 AI guidance including a four-tier use system (AI-Empowered/Enhanced/Assisted/Prohibited) and a cyclical framework for policy, stakeholders, and monitoring.
-
In effect
North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificia
North Carolina · Effective 2024-08-01 · North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Framework
NCDIT published a NIST-based framework of principles, practices, and guidance for state agencies deploying AI while reducing privacy and data-protection risks to residents.
-
In effect
Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education
Colorado Department of Education · Effective 2024-08-01 · Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education
Colorado's education department (with the Colorado Education Initiative) published a statewide roadmap providing K-12 districts practical strategies and resources for integrating AI into teaching and learning.
-
In effect
Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) · Effective 2024-07-29 · Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 and Library Education
Wisconsin's education department released 22-page guidance for K-12 classrooms and libraries covering core AI concepts, ethics/data policy, security, professional development, and curriculum integration.
-
In effect
Delaware AI Commission Act (government AI inventory)
Delaware · Effective 2024-07-17 · Del. H.B. 333, 152nd Gen. Assemb. (2024); 29 Del. C. ch. 90C
This law creates the Delaware Artificial Intelligence Commission, a state body charged with studying how artificial intelligence is used in Delaware government and recommending policies for its safe and responsible use. One of the Commission's required tasks is to take a full inventory of every generative-AI tool in use across the state's executive, legislative, and judicial agencies and to flag high-risk applications. The Commission issues recommendations but does not itself regulate private companies or impose penalties. It is scheduled to sunset ten years after enactment unless lawmakers extend it.
-
In effect
Maryland AI Governance Act (2024)
Maryland · Effective 2024-07-01 · 2024 Md. Laws ch. 496 (SB 818)
This law sets up a governance framework for how Maryland state government builds, buys, deploys, and uses artificial intelligence. Each state government unit must inventory the systems it uses that employ high-risk AI and conduct regular impact assessments. The Department of Information Technology is directed to develop and adopt policies covering the development, procurement, deployment, use, and ongoing assessment of high-risk AI systems.
-
In effect
New Hampshire HB 1688 (state-agency AI limits)
New Hampshire · Effective 2024-07-01 · N.H. HB 1688 (2024), effective July 1, 2024
New Hampshire set rules for how state agencies may use artificial intelligence. Agencies may not use AI to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination, and they may not use real-time or remote biometric identification such as facial recognition to surveil public spaces — except by law enforcement acting under a warrant. Agencies also may not use deepfakes for deceptive or malicious purposes. When an AI recommendation cannot be reversed once carried out, a qualified human must review it first, AI-generated content must be disclosed, and the public must be told when they are interacting with AI.
-
In effect
Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) · Effective 2024-07-01 · Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools
Washington's state superintendent issued 'Human-AI-Human' guidance for K-12 schools covering AI foundations, classroom implementation, ethical considerations, policy suggestions, and privacy compliance.
-
In effect
South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI)
South Carolina · Effective 2024-06-19 · South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy
The South Carolina Department of Administration published a statewide AI strategy rooted in 'protect, promote, pursue' that establishes a Center of Excellence and AI Advisory Group and directs development of statewide acceptable-use, procurement, and data-protection policies for agencies.
-
In effect
AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies
Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) · Effective 2024-06-01 · AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies
Alabama's education department released a customizable AI policy template for LEAs built on eight pillars (strategy, governance, data privacy/security, procurement, implementation, competency, risk management, effectiveness).
-
In effect
SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw
State University of New York (SUNY) · Effective 2024-05-09 · SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemwide AI chatbot program)
New York and SUNY launched a systemwide generative-AI education program described as the largest LLM-enabled education system, providing customized tutoring while pledging to protect privacy and academic integrity.
-
In effect
NM EO 2024-011
NM · Effective 2024-04-05 · N.M. Exec. Order No. 2024-011 (Apr. 5, 2024)
Governor Lujan Grisham's EO 2024-011 requires New Mexico state agencies to adopt NIST baselines covering AI, cloud, supply chain, and ransomware risks by November 1, 2024.
-
In effect
Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms
Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) · Effective 2024-04-05 · Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms
Mississippi's education department published procedural guidance and instructional strategies for district and school leaders and teachers on appropriate AI use, including definitions, classroom impact, and policy-development considerations.
-
In effect
NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System (
New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) · Effective 2024-04-01 · NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System (federal grant with Rutgers CAIT)
NJ TRANSIT received a $1.6M USDOT grant to develop, with Rutgers CAIT, a deep-learning video-analytics system that monitors light-rail grade crossings to detect safety events and trespassers.
-
In effect
California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit
California · Effective 2024-03-21 · California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit
California's Government Operations Agency and Department of Technology issued procurement guidelines and a toolkit requiring state entities to complete a SIMM 5305-F GenAI risk assessment, use written solicitations with a GenAI Disclosure & Fact Sheet, engage the CIO/AIO, and report GenAI contracts before procuring generative AI.
-
In effect
State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Poli
Arizona · Effective 2024-03-01 · State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Policy
The Arizona Department of Administration issued statewide policy P2000 governing responsible generative-AI use, requiring careful review of AI output, prohibiting feeding proprietary or sensitive information to public models, and emphasizing data governance, transparency, security, and privacy.
-
In effect
Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Cent
Rhode Island · Effective 2024-02-29 · Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Centers of Excellence
Governor Dan McKee's executive order establishes an AI Task Force, an AI Center of Excellence and a Data Center of Excellence, and directs the Department of Administration to develop a state code of ethics for AI and secure AI adoption across state agencies.
-
In effect
Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Inte
Alabama · Effective 2024-02-28 · Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Intelligence Task Force
Governor Kay Ivey created a Generative AI Task Force to study current GenAI use in executive-branch agencies and recommend policies for responsible and effective adoption within a governance structure ensuring transparency, bias testing, and privacy.
-
In effect
MA EO 629
MA · Effective 2024-02-14 · Mass. Exec. Order No. 629 (Feb. 14, 2024)
Governor Healey's EO 629 creates a 26-member AI Strategic Task Force spanning government, labor, healthcare, finance, education, and life sciences to recommend AI policy for Massachusetts.
-
In effect
MI SOS Deepfake Election Policy
MI · Effective 2024-02-13 · Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932f, enacted by P.A. 265 of 2023
Michigan's Secretary of State adopted a statewide response plan for AI-generated deepfake election content, coordinating with Michigan Cyber Command and Michigan State Police. Local clerks have standardized procedures for documenting and escalating AI deepfake incidents.
-
In effect
Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli
District of Columbia · Effective 2024-02-08 · Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelligence Values and Establishing Artificial Intelligence Strategic Benchmarks
Mayor Bowser's order defines six AI values (clear benefit to the people, safety & equity, accountability, transparency, sustainability, and privacy & cybersecurity), establishes an AI Advisory Group and AI Taskforce, and requires District agencies to verify AI-values alignment before deploying any AI tool.
-
Proposed / pending
OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy
District of Columbia · Effective 2024-02-08 · OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy
The Office of the Chief Technology Officer's governance policy establishes rules for the responsible and secure use of AI/ML in DC government, requiring written agency-director approval before using agency data with AI, cybersecurity and business risk assessments, use of only OCTO-approved platforms, data-classification restrictions, and continuous monitoring.
-
In effect
Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clo
New Hampshire · Effective 2024-02-06 · Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clone voter-suppression robocalls
The NH Attorney General's Election Law Unit issued a cease-and-desist order to Life Corporation for AI-generated robocalls that cloned President Biden's voice to suppress votes in the 2024 primary, applying existing state voter-suppression law to deepfake audio.
-
In effect
WA EO 24-01
WA · Effective 2024-01-30 · Wash. Exec. Order No. 24-01 (Jan. 19, 2024)
Governor Inslee's EO 24-01 directs WaTech to develop generative AI guidelines for Washington state government, identify high-value GenAI initiatives, and catalog high-risk uses across agencies.
-
In effect
IL EO 2024-01
IL · Effective 2024-01-22 · Ill. Exec. Order No. 2024-01 (Jan. 22, 2024)
Governor Pritzker's EO 2024-01 establishes Illinois's Generative AI and Natural Language Processing Task Force to study impacts and recommend state-government uses, charged with reporting to the Governor and General Assembly.
-
In effect
VA EO 30 (2024)
VA · Effective 2024-01-18 · Va. Exec. Order No. 30 (Jan. 18, 2024)
Governor Youngkin's EO 30 directs the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) to issue AI policy and IT standards for state agencies, develops K-12 and higher-ed AI education guidelines, sets law-enforcement AI standards, and creates a Virginia AI Task Force.
-
In effect
NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Consider
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) · Effective 2024-01-16 · NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Considerations for PK-13 Public Schools
North Carolina's education department released a generative AI guidebook (including the 'EVERY' responsible-use framework) covering leadership, human capacity, curriculum, data privacy, and technology infrastructure for public schools.
-
In effect
MD EO 01.01.2024.02
MD · Effective 2024-01-08 · Md. Exec. Order No. 01.01.2024.02 (Jan. 8, 2024)
Governor Moore's EO 01.01.2024.02 establishes values-based principles and an AI Subcabinet to coordinate ethical AI use across Maryland state government.
-
In effect
Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-
New York · Effective 2024-01-08 · Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-P24-001)
New York's Office of Information Technology Services set enterprise rules requiring state agencies to conduct NIST-based risk assessments, maintain human oversight of AI decisions affecting the public, and disclose AI chatbots as non-human.
-
In effect
California AB 302 (state must inventory its high-risk automated decision systems)
California · Effective 2024-01-01 · Cal. Gov. Code 11546.45.5 (AB 302, Stats. 2023)
California directs its Department of Technology to compile a comprehensive inventory of the high-risk automated decision systems that state agencies use, develop, or buy. A high-risk system is one that helps make or replaces consequential decisions affecting things like housing, jobs, credit, health care, education, and criminal justice. The Department must report the inventory to the Legislature annually, with the obligation winding down at the start of 2029.
-
In effect
State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy
Indiana · Effective 2024-01-01 · State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy
Indiana's state AI policy, issued by the Office of the Chief Data Officer, applies the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and requires agencies to submit an AI Readiness Assessment Questionnaire and report existing AI systems before use.
-
In effect
Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard
Minnesota · Effective 2024-01-01 · Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard
Minnesota IT Services set a security standard governing state employees' use of public AI services (such as ChatGPT), restricting inputs to public/low-classification data and setting guardrails to prevent breaches of private or sensitive information.
-
In effect
Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard
Oklahoma · Effective 2024-01-01 · Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard
Oklahoma's Office of Management and Enterprise Services, under the state CIO, sets a mandatory standard requiring agencies to use only CIO-approved AI tools, complete AI awareness training, verify AI output, and never input sensitive data.
-
In effect
State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui
South Dakota · Effective 2024-01-01 · State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines & Acceptable State Use
The Bureau of Information and Telecommunications sets acceptable-use guidelines for generative AI in state government, requiring employees to fact-check, edit, and treat AI output as a starting point while managing bias, privacy, and cybersecurity risks.
-
In effect
Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007)
Tennessee · Effective 2024-01-01 · Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007)
Tennessee's Department of Finance and Administration (Strategic Technology Solutions) sets minimum requirements for valid, reliable, transparent, and ethical use of AI across state departments, requiring monitoring of AI design, deployment, and procurement to minimize negative impacts.
-
In effect
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · Effective 2024-01-01 · CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framework
The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office issues systemwide AI guidance built on its HUMANS framework (human-centered, privacy, algorithmic-discrimination protections, notice and explanation, safety) governing AI in instruction and student support.
-
In effect
Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines
Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) · Effective 2024-01-01 · Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines
Penn State's systemwide AI guidelines set responsible-use rules covering FERPA/HIPAA compliance, output verification, accessibility review of AI tools, disclosure, and restrictions on AI-assisted grading across its multi-campus system.
-
In effect
USVI Act 8797 (RTCC)
US Virgin Islands · Effective 2023-12-19 · V.I. Act No. 8797 (2023); 3 V.I.C. § 263(a)
USVI Act 8797 establishes a centralized Real-Time Crime Center in the VI Police Department. Statutorily authorizes gunshot detection, a surveillance camera network, automated license plate readers, and fingerprint biometrics — putting AI-adjacent surveillance tech on a legal footing rather than restricting it. $2.5M appropriated.
-
In effect
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutio
Ohio · Effective 2023-12-04 · Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutions (Policy IT-17)
Ohio's Department of Administrative Services adopted Policy IT-17 requiring state AI use to be fair, accountable, transparent, and human-centric, mandating piloting, human verification for consequential decisions, and limiting generative-AI inputs to public-record data.
-
In effect
OR EO 23-06
OR · Effective 2023-11-28 · Or. Exec. Order No. 23-06 (Nov. 28, 2023)
Governor Kotek's EO 23-06 establishes Oregon's AI Advisory Council with an equity focus. It produced the 2024 Action Plan with 12 principles and 74 recommendations governing state agencies' AI use.
-
In effect
Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intellige
New Jersey · Effective 2023-11-17 · Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by State Employees
New Jersey's policy directs state employees using generative AI to disclose and label AI use, independently fact-check outputs, and refrain from entering confidential or personally identifiable information into AI tools.
-
In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G
Oregon Department of Education · Effective 2023-11-01 · Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms Guidance
Oregon's education department maintains generative AI guidance and a companion 'Developing Policy and Protocols' document to help districts adopt safe, ethical, equitable AI policies in K-12 classrooms.
-
In effect
NJ EO 346 (AI Task Force)
NJ · Effective 2023-10-10 · N.J. Exec. Order No. 346 (Oct. 10, 2023)
Governor Murphy's EO 346 created New Jersey's AI Task Force to study societal impacts of AI and recommend ethical-use policies for state government. It directs state agencies to inventory their AI use and coordinate with the Task Force on guidance.
-
In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition
New York State Education Department · Effective 2023-09-27 · Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition Technology in Schools
NYSED Commissioner Betty Rosa issued a statewide determination prohibiting all New York public and nonpublic schools from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, while leaving other biometric tools to local discretion subject to privacy and civil-rights review.
-
In effect
PA EO 2023-19 (GenAI)
PA · Effective 2023-09-20 · Pa. Exec. Order No. 2023-19 (Sept. 20, 2023)
Governor Shapiro's EO 2023-19 establishes Pennsylvania's Generative AI Governing Board and sets 10 core values (accuracy, adaptability, employee empowerment, equity and fairness, innovation, mission alignment, privacy, proportionality, safety and security, and transparency) that govern Commonwealth agencies' use of generative AI tools.
-
In effect
OK EO 2023-24
OK · Effective 2023-09-19 · Okla. Exec. Order No. 2023-24 (Sept. 19, 2023)
Governor Stitt's EO 2023-24 creates a Task Force on Emerging Technologies to study and recommend policy for state use of artificial intelligence and generative AI.
-
In effect
New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on
New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) · Effective 2023-09-01 · New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on facial recognition purchase/use)
Effective September 2023 following the NYSED Commissioner determination, all New York schools are prohibited from purchasing or using facial recognition technology, making NY the first state with such a comprehensive school ban.
-
In effect
WI EO 211
WI · Effective 2023-08-23 · Wis. Exec. Order No. 211 (Aug. 23, 2023)
Governor Evers's EO 211 created a workforce-focused AI Task Force that produced a 2024 advisory action plan on AI's labor-market impact, with recommendations for workforce development and reskilling.
-
In effect
Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Gen
Washington · Effective 2023-08-08 · Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Washington State Government
WaTech's interim guidelines establish principles and dos-and-don'ts for state employees using generative AI, covering fact-checking, bias reduction, attribution, and protection of sensitive or confidential data.
-
In effect
State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P
Kansas · Effective 2023-07-31 · State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (PPM 8200.00)
The Kansas Office of Information Technology Services enterprise policy sets acceptable-use rules for generative AI, requiring human review of all AI outputs, barring Restricted Use Information from AI tools, and imposing vendor disclosure and data-control requirements.
-
In effect
CT SB 1103 (state-government AI oversight)
Connecticut · Effective 2023-07-01 · 2023 Conn. Public Acts 23-16 (SB 1103)
This law sets rules for how Connecticut's own state government uses artificial intelligence. It directs the Department of Administrative Services to catalog the AI systems that state agencies use and to assess them for unlawful discrimination and disparate impact. It also establishes an AI officer in the Office of Policy and Management to develop AI policies and procedures that agencies must follow. The law governs public-sector use rather than imposing penalties on private companies.
-
In effect
PA Act 130 of 2022 (HAVs)
Pennsylvania · Effective 2022-11-03 · Act 130 of 2022; 75 Pa. C.S. Ch. 88
Pennsylvania's comprehensive AV law authorized fully driverless operation, created a PennDOT permitting regime for testing and commercial deployment, required incident reporting to PennDOT and State Police, and authorized 'highly automated work zone vehicles' and platooning. Pennsylvania had been an AV testing hub since 2016 under non-statutory PennDOT guidance; Act 130 finally codified the framework.
-
In effect
SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) · Effective 2022-11-01 · SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program
SEPTA's board approved a ZeroEyes AI gun-detection pilot layered on its 30,000+ cameras to flag brandished firearms within seconds, but the year-long pilot was ended after the aging analog camera infrastructure proved incompatible.
-
In effect
OH HB 7 (2022 AV)
Ohio · Effective 2022-09-13 · Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4501.01, 4511.01, 4511.991
Ohio's 2022 statute codified what had been executive-order policy under DriveOhio: fully driverless AV operation is allowed, the registered owner is the legal operator for traffic enforcement, AV networks must carry $5 million in insurance, and the state must maintain an AV testing program (the Smart Mobility / TRC framework).
-
In effect
Vermont H.410 / Act 132 (inventory of state AI / automated decision systems)
Vermont · Effective 2022-07-01 · 2022 Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 132 (H.410); 3 V.S.A. 3305
Vermont directed its Agency of Digital Services to review and catalog every automated decision system the state is building, using, or buying. The inventory must document each system's name, vendor, capabilities, data inputs, whether it was tested for bias, its intended purpose, and its costs, covering both systems that decide on their own and those that assist a human. The law also created state AI governance bodies, including a Division of Artificial Intelligence and an AI Advisory Council.
-
In effect
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame
University of California (UC System) · Effective 2021-10-01 · UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance framework
UC was the first US university system to adopt Responsible AI Principles and stand up a systemwide AI Council that issues guidance, training, and risk assessments for AI use across its campuses.
-
In effect
PA PDD law (Act 130/2020)
Pennsylvania · Effective 2021-01-04 · Act 130 of 2020; 75 Pa. C.S. § 3550
Pennsylvania authorized personal delivery devices to operate on sidewalks, shoulders, and roadways up to 25 mph (high relative to most PDD laws), requires $100,000 liability insurance, and reserves limited regulation to local governments.
-
In effect
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of
Vermont · Effective 2020-03-10 · Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law
The Vermont Attorney General sued Clearview AI under the Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law for scraping Vermonters' photos and using facial-recognition AI to map faces and sell access without consent.
-
In effect
AR Act 1096 (2019 AV)
Arkansas · Effective 2019-07-24 · Act 1096 of 2019; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 27-51-1801 et seq.
Arkansas authorized commercial driver-assistive truck platooning and limited driverless AV pilots, established a Pilot Program for Driverless-Capable Vehicles administered by the Arkansas State Highway Commission, and required pilots to file insurance and incident-reporting plans.
-
In effect
UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute)
Utah · Effective 2019-05-14 · Utah Code §§ 41-26-101 et seq.
Utah's AV law expressly allows fully driverless operation, treats the automated driving system as the 'driver' for traffic-law purposes, authorizes commercial AV networks, and preempts local AV regulation.
-
In effect
OH PDD law (SB 156)
Ohio · Effective 2019-04-04 · Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.513
Ohio authorized sidewalk delivery robots up to 200 lb (one of the highest weight caps in the country) and up to 10 mph, with $100,000 in liability insurance. Local governments retain authority to set additional operating rules.
-
In effect
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · Effective 2018-09-13 · BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
BART became the first transit district in the country to adopt a CCOPS-style ordinance requiring board approval, a surveillance impact report, a use policy, and annual reports before acquiring surveillance technology.
-
In effect
AZ PDD law (HB 2422)
Arizona · Effective 2018-08-03 · Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-9601–28-9605
Arizona authorized sidewalk delivery robots statewide and prohibited municipalities from imposing taxes, fees, or registration requirements on PDDs, while letting them set operating rules (time of day, density, sidewalk type).
-
In effect
NE LB 989 (2018 AV)
Nebraska · Effective 2018-04-25 · Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3,201 et seq.
Nebraska's Driverless-Capable Vehicle Act explicitly allows fully driverless operation on Nebraska public roads, treats the automated driving system as the driver for traffic-law purposes, sets minimum insurance ($5 million for on-demand AV networks), and preempts local regulation.
-
In effect
AZ EO 2018-04 (AV oversight)
Arizona · Effective 2018-03-01 · Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2018-04
On March 1, 2018 — 17 days before the fatal Uber self-driving crash in Tempe — Governor Doug Ducey issued EO 2018-04 to update his permissive 2015 AV order and advance Arizona's position as a national leader for autonomous vehicle development. The order requires AV operators to certify compliance with federal and state law before operating in Arizona and to file safety information with the DOT. After the Uber crash on March 18, 2018, Ducey separately suspended Uber's testing privileges by letter rather than by executive order. Arizona's AV regime remains executive-order based, with no comprehensive statute.
-
In effect
NC HB 469 (2017 AV statute)
North Carolina · Effective 2017-12-01 · S.L. 2017-166; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-400–20-403
North Carolina legalized fully autonomous vehicles, treats the registered owner as the operator for traffic-enforcement purposes, allows AVs to transport unaccompanied minors only with parental consent, and preempts local AV regulation.
-
In effect
FL PDD law (2017)
Florida · Effective 2017-10-01 · Fla. Stat. § 316.008
Florida authorized personal delivery devices to operate on sidewalks and bicycle facilities statewide (10 mph cap, 80 lb cargo, $100,000 insurance) and preempted municipal bans, leaving cities only limited authority to set time-of-day and crowd-size rules.
-
In effect
TX SB 2205 (2017 AV statute)
Texas · Effective 2017-09-01 · Tex. Transp. Code §§ 545.451–545.456
Texas's main autonomous-vehicle law explicitly authorizes AVs to operate on Texas roads without a human driver, defines the 'owner' of an automated driving system as the legal operator for liability and traffic enforcement, and preempts local AV bans. It set the framework that later allowed Waymo, Cruise, and Aurora freight to operate in Texas.
-
In effect
IL AV local-preemption (2017)
Illinois · Effective 2017-08-25 · P.A. 100-352; 625 ILCS 65
Illinois has not enacted a comprehensive AV testing/deployment statute; instead, the Autonomous Vehicles Act preempts local governments (including Chicago) from prohibiting the use of automated driving systems or requiring an AV-specific operator license. As of 2026 the legislature still has not adopted a Texas/Florida-style operational framework.
-
In effect
GA SB 219 (2017 AV statute)
Georgia · Effective 2017-07-01 · 2017 Ga. Laws Act 245
Georgia legalized fully driverless autonomous vehicles statewide, required AVs to be registered, insured ($250,000 minimum for fully autonomous vehicles), and capable of complying with traffic laws. The statute preempts local AV-specific ordinances.
-
In effect
TN SB 151 (2017 AV Act)
Tennessee · Effective 2017-07-01 · 2017 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 474; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-30-101 et seq.
Tennessee's Automated Vehicles Act authorized fully driverless operation on Tennessee roads, set minimum-insurance requirements for AV networks ($5 million coverage), explicitly preempted local AV-specific regulation, and treated the automated driving system as the legal operator for traffic-law purposes.
-
In effect
WI PDD Act 13 (2017)
Wisconsin · Effective 2017-07-01 · Wis. Stat. § 346.804; 2017 Wis. Act 13
Wisconsin authorized sidewalk delivery robots up to 80 lb at up to 10 mph, requires operators to carry $100,000 in liability insurance, and allows cities to set additional rules but not outright bans.
-
In effect
ID PDD law (HB 191)
Idaho · Effective 2017-07-01 · Idaho Code §§ 49-2701 et seq.
Idaho authorized statewide sidewalk delivery robots under a uniform framework (80 lb, 10 mph), required $100,000 in liability insurance, and gave local governments limited authority to add operating rules.
-
In effect
CO SB 17-213 (AV statute)
Colorado · Effective 2017-06-01 · Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-242
Colorado authorized automated driving systems, allowing AVs that can comply with all traffic laws to operate without a separate state authorization — but if the ADS cannot fully comply, the operator must coordinate with CDOT and the State Patrol before deployment.
-
In effect
NY AV testing pilot
New York · Effective 2017-04-20 · Part FF, Ch. 55, Laws of 2017 (uncodified session law)
New York requires AV operators to obtain DMV pilot-program authorization, maintain a licensed human safety driver behind the wheel, post a $5 million insurance bond, and coordinate with State Police for each test deployment. New York remains one of the most restrictive states — fully driverless operation is not authorized as of 2026.
-
In effect
MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package)
Michigan · Effective 2016-12-09 · P.A. 332–335 of 2016
Michigan's 2016 four-bill 'SAVE' package made the state one of the most comprehensive AV jurisdictions: it legalized fully driverless operation, authorized commercial AV networks (ride-hail with self-driving cars), allowed truck platooning, established the American Center for Mobility, and explicitly limited manufacturer liability when third parties convert vehicles to autonomous operation.
-
In effect
FL HB 7027 (2016 driverless AV)
Florida · Effective 2016-04-04 · Ch. 2016-181, Laws of Fla.; Fla. Stat. §§ 316.85, 316.86
Florida became one of the first states to allow fully driverless autonomous vehicles on public roads. HB 7027 removed the prior requirement that a licensed driver be present in the vehicle and built on Florida's 2012 AV testing law, paving the way for the 2019 'driverless deployment' law (HB 311) that explicitly authorizes AVs with no human driver.
-
In effect
CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization)
California · Effective 2013-01-01 · Cal. Veh. Code §§ 38750 et seq.
California's foundational autonomous-vehicle statute. SB 1298 directed the DMV to adopt regulations for testing and eventual deployment of AVs on California roads, including an autonomous-vehicle tester permit, insurance and bonding rules, and the framework later used for the Cruise and Waymo robotaxi authorizations.
-
In effect
Guam EDPA (5 GCA Ch. 14)
Guam · Effective 2012-01-01 · 5 G.C.A. ch. 14
Guam's baseline statute on government use of personal data — predates the AI wave but is the foundation any AI system using citizen data must comply with. Governs collection, use, and protection of personal data by Guam executive-branch agencies.
-
In effect
NV AB 511 (2011 — first AV statute)
Nevada · Effective 2011-06-17 · NRS Ch. 482A (2011 Nev. Stat. Ch. 461)
Nevada was the first U.S. state to legalize autonomous vehicles. AB 511 directed the DMV to write rules for testing and operating self-driving cars on Nevada roads, including a special license endorsement and an autonomous-vehicle testing license, and made Nevada the proving ground for the early Google self-driving project.
-
Proposed / pending
Pennsylvania Municipal Data Center Moratorium Bills (Coleman
Pennsylvania · Pennsylvania Municipal Data Center Moratorium Bills (Coleman / Friel)
Two Pennsylvania bills advancing in the Senate would authorize municipalities to enact temporary moratoriums (up to 18 months and six months) on data center development applications.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricit
Virginia · Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricity Tax, Water Cooling and Noise Provisions
Virginia's new two-year budget imposes a first-of-its-kind $0.011/kWh tax on data center electricity consumption effective July 1, 2026, and directs regulators to establish water-cooling scarcity rules and first-ever noise standards for data centers.
-
Proposed / pending
House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare
Pennsylvania · House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare companies
Pennsylvania's House passed HB 2512 to prohibit transportation network companies (Uber/Lyft) from using consumers' personal data to set individualized 'surveillance' prices, now advancing to the Senate.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
S731/A796 — Data center ratepayer protection and grid-demand
New Jersey · NJ S731/A796 (Data Center Fair Share Act), signed by Governor Sherrill July 7, 2026
New Jersey Governor Sherrill signed S731/A796 — the Data Center Fair Share Act — into law on July 7, 2026. The law requires large data centers (those with 100 megawatts or more of contracted electricity) to pay for the full amount of electricity they contract for, and to reduce or shift energy use during peak grid stress events. The law is designed to prevent large data centers from reserving grid capacity that ordinary ratepayers then subsidize.
-
Proposed / pending
North Carolina Senate Bill 730 (Data Center Water and Coolin
North Carolina · North Carolina Senate Bill 730 (Data Center Water and Cooling Regulations)
North Carolina's House advanced SB 730 to largely prohibit evaporative cooling, require closed-loop water systems, and direct the state to set water-use standards for large data centers.
-
Proposed / pending
Senate Bill 1345 - Municipal Data Center Development Morator
Pennsylvania · Senate Bill 1345 - Municipal Data Center Development Moratorium Authority
Pennsylvania SB 1345, which would let municipalities impose an 18-month moratorium on unapproved and new data center applications while they revise zoning and policies, advanced out of the Senate Local Government Committee to the Senate floor.
-
Vetoed
Arizona HB 2592 AI state agencies — vetoed 2026
Arizona · Ariz. H.B. 2592, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) — vetoed June 19, 2026
Arizona HB 2592 would have required every state agency to identify opportunities to implement AI systems that reduce administrative burdens, eliminate regulations restricting AI adoption, streamline AI procurement, and establish internal AI governance policies. The bill passed the House 35-20 and the Senate 16-12 with bipartisan support, but Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it on June 19, 2026, writing that state agencies were already weighing AI adoption and the bill was redundant. It was one of three AI bills — and 88 total bills — vetoed by Hobbs on the same day.
-
Expired
Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening
The Port Authority of NY & NJ deployed facial-recognition eGates at Newark Liberty that let enrolled travelers pass TSA checkpoints by matching a live facial scan against their identity document instead of a manual ID check.
-
Expired
Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Luf
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport, Terminal B) · Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Lufthansa/CBP)
The Port Authority piloted a biometric self-boarding e-gate at Newark Gate 62 that captured passengers' faces and verified them against CBP's passport database to board without documents, with scans deleted within 12 hours.
-
Proposed / pending
LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Dat
Kentucky Public Service Commission (LG&E and KU) · LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Data Center Tariff (Case 2025-00045)
The Kentucky PSC authorized LG&E/KU to build two gas plants for future data centers and endorsed an 'extremely high load factor' tariff under which new data centers using at least 100 MW must pay for at least 80% of their stated monthly consumption for 15 years, while deferring the cost-recovery mechanism to a later rate case.
-
Proposed / pending
Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Car
Public Service Commission of South Carolina · Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Carolinas Settlements
Settlements with Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas require the South Carolina PSC to open a large load tariff docket that could establish consumer protections ensuring incremental data-center costs are not shifted onto residential and traditional business customers.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)
The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub
Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners · MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Subway
The MTA and NYPD piloted Evolv AI-powered gun-detection scanners at NYC subway stations; a monthlong test of 3,000+ searches at 20 stations found no guns and over 100 false positives.
-
Vetoed
PR P. de la C. 347 (vetoed)
Puerto Rico · P. de la C. 347 (19th Leg. Assembly); pocket vetoed Nov. 12, 2024
House bill that would have authorized PRITS to regulate Executive Branch AI use with administrative penalties of $2,500–$10,000 for noncompliance. Pocket vetoed by Governor Pierluisi on November 12, 2024 — so there is no PR-wide statutory AI penalty regime yet.
-
Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 731 (AI Public Procurement Law)
Puerto Rico · P. del S. 731 (19th Leg. Assembly); Puerto Rico Senate approval ~May 28–30, 2026
Puerto Rico Senate Bill 731 would create the 'Law of Public Procurement with Artificial Intelligence of Puerto Rico,' centralizing all government purchases and public auctions under the General Services Administration and mandating use of the Joint E-Procurement Digital Intelligence (JEDI) AI platform across all government entities covered by Law 73-2019. JEDI automates procurement workflows, official publications, and incorporates all eight acquisition methods recognized by law. Approved by the Puerto Rico Senate in late May 2026; pending the House of Representatives and governor.
-
Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 68 (Gov AI Framework)
Puerto Rico · P. del S. 68 (19th Leg. Assembly)
Senate bill creating a Chief AI Officer position at PR Innovation and Technology Service (PRITS) plus an AI Advisory Committee. Would govern PR government use of AI, require non-discrimination assessments, and mandate annual reports. Cleared Senate; pending House vote.
-
Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 348 (AI in Schools)
Puerto Rico · P. del S. 348 (19th Leg. Assembly)
Bill (Sen. Brenda Pérez Soto) establishing an ethical framework for AI integration in PR Department of Education classrooms — including pilot programs in two schools per region and supports for special-education students. Cleared both chambers; in Conference Committee.
-
Proposed / pending
PR R.C. del S. 1 (AI Registry)
Puerto Rico · R.C. del S. 1 (19th Leg. Assembly)
Joint Senate Resolution directing PRITS to maintain a public registry of companies developing or deploying AI in Puerto Rico, broken down by sector. First transparency-registry measure of its kind for a US jurisdiction. In Conference Committee.
-
Expired
NY S3971B (2019, AI study commission, died)
NY · N.Y. S3971B (2019-20 Reg. Sess.) — died in Assembly
New York S3971B (Savino, 2019) would have created a temporary state commission to study AI regulation across New York agencies. Died in the Assembly Governmental Operations committee — but the commission framework became the model for later state AI task force statutes nationwide.
County government use of AI rules (78)
-
In effect
Gulf County FL AI data center moratorium (2026)
Gulf County, FL · Effective 2026-07-27 · Gulf County, Fla. — Board of County Commissioners, 4-1 vote, 2026-07-27
The Gulf County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on Monday, July 27, 2026 to approve a one-year moratorium on new AI data centers, to allow time to study potential impacts and develop a policy before any future projects are considered. Commissioner Phil McCroan moved the measure with Commissioner Randy Pridgeon's support; Commissioner Jack Husband cast the dissenting vote.
-
In effect
Santa Fe County NM data center moratorium (2026)
Santa Fe County, NM · Effective 2026-07-09 · Santa Fe County, N.M. Ordinance No. 2026-06
Section 5 bars the County from accepting any new application for a Development Approval or Development Permit for a Data Center, bars the Board and any County body from further processing or acting on such applications, and bars issuance of any such approval or permit. 'Data Center' means a facility, or proposed expansion, designed or used primarily for housing, managing, operating or transmitting data with a proposed aggregate IT Load Capacity of 1 megawatt or greater, expressly including hyperscale, artificial-intelligence computing, cloud, colocation and cryptocurrency mining facilities, and excluding ordinary computer rooms, server closets and IT equipment incidental to a principal lawful use. Exemptions cover sub-threshold facilities, County-owned or County-operated governmental data processing, applications deemed complete before the effective date, and facilities with vested rights as determined by the County Land Use Administrator.
-
In effect
Monroe County WI data center + battery storage moratorium (2026)
Monroe County, WI · Effective 2026-07-21 · Monroe County, Wis. Board of Supervisors resolution (2026-07-21); packet designation 07-26-04
Acting under Wis. Stat. § 59.69(4), the Monroe County Board of Supervisors enacted a moratorium on the receipt of applications for, and the granting of, all zoning-related permits for the placement or construction of Battery Storage Facilities and Medium and Large Scale Data Centers and related land use. Medium Scale Data Centers are defined as up to 3,000 square feet with power demand of 10 MW or less, including colocation facilities and potentially bitcoin or cryptocurrency mining; Large Scale as over 3,000 square feet with more than 10 MW. Small Scale Data Centers — single-organization onsite facilities under 500 kW with no crypto mining — are defined separately and fall outside the operative scope. A Battery Storage Facility is any site housing a collection of interconnected batteries designed to accumulate electrical energy from various sources for later use, so the measure is materially broader than data centers alone.
-
In effect
Hamilton County TN 1-year data center moratorium (eff. July 15, 2026)
Hamilton County · Effective 2026-07-15 · Hamilton County (TN) Commission, one-year data center moratorium (>1 MW), unincorporated areas (adopted July 15, 2026)
Hamilton County, Tennessee's County Commission passed a one-year moratorium on new data centers in unincorporated areas on July 15, 2026. The moratorium applies to data centers with more than 1 MW of electricity demand and runs through approximately July 15, 2027. An exception was carved out for an existing jail-related facility (~12,000 sq ft, inside Chattanooga city limits). Mayor Weston Wamp proposed the resolution after widespread community opposition. Hamilton County borders Walker County, Georgia, where a separate data center moratorium was also recently adopted.
-
In effect
Wasatch County UT AI use policy (Jul. 15, 2026)
Wasatch County, UT · Effective 2026-07-15 · Wasatch County, UT Council unanimous vote, July 15, 2026, adopting county government AI use policy
Wasatch County, Utah unanimously adopted a policy on July 15, 2026 setting guardrails for county government use of artificial intelligence. The policy restricts county employees to approved AI tools only, requires disclosure when AI is used, and requires human verification of AI-generated output before it is relied on. The policy governs internal county government use of AI rather than regulating private-sector AI.
-
In effect
Linn County IA 18-month data-center moratorium (2026)
Linn County, Iowa · Effective 2026-07-01 · Linn County (IA) Board of Supervisors Resolution — 18-month EU-3 data-center rezoning moratorium (July 1, 2026)
Linn County, Iowa (home to Cedar Rapids) voted 2-1 on July 1, 2026 to impose an 18-month moratorium pausing all new EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center Zoning District rezoning applications in unincorporated areas of the county. The moratorium is effective immediately through January 1, 2028, and gives the county time to conduct a comprehensive planning process to address data center siting, water use, energy consumption, and community impact. Note: this is a separate and additional measure from the existing Linn County data-center zoning ordinance (February 2026), which established the EU-3 zone; this moratorium pauses NEW rezoning requests under that zone.
-
In effect
Linn County IA EU-3 rezoning moratorium (2026)
Linn County, IA · Effective 2026-07-01 · Linn County, Iowa resolution (adopted 2026-07-01); number not assigned in the posted copy
The resolution establishes a moratorium on the acceptance for filing and processing of new applications to rezone property into the EU-3 Large-Scale Data Center District. It does NOT ban data center construction and does not repeal or suspend the county's existing data center zoning ordinance (PA26-0001, adopted 2026-02-18) — it freezes the rezoning pathway into EU-3 while the county completes technical studies, coordinates with municipalities, utility providers, regional planning organizations, emergency management and state and federal agencies, gathers public input, and evaluates amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. It expressly preserves the Board's ability to later consider amendments allowing data centers as accessory or supportive uses to nuclear energy generating facilities in the EU-2 district.
-
In effect
Chester County SC data center pause (2026)
Chester County, SC · Effective 2026-06-15 · Chester County, S.C. Ordinance No. 2026-14
Ordinance No. 2026-14 bars any Chester County official, employee, board or commission from accepting, processing or approving any application for a Data Center Development. Section 2 defines that term to include rezonings, planned developments, text or map amendments, special exceptions, variances, subdivisions, site plans, land development, utility and building permit approvals for data centers, server farms, colocation facilities, cryptocurrency or digital asset mining operations, and artificial intelligence computing facilities. Section 4 directs planning staff and outside experts to prepare use-specific standards covering permitted districts, separation, setbacks, screening, buffering, electric and water adequacy, noise limits, and decommissioning and financial assurance. Section 9 adopts the pending ordinance doctrine, applies the ordinance from first reading, and terminates it on the earlier of repeal or 2026-12-31 unless extended.
-
In effect
Six-month data-center permit moratorium (Montgomery County, MD)
Montgomery County, Maryland · Effective 2026-06-12 · Montgomery County (MD) County Executive Executive Order — six-month data-center permit moratorium (signed ~June 12, 2026)
Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich signed an Executive Order around June 12, 2026 enacting a six-month moratorium on new data-center building permits in Montgomery County, Maryland. Council Member Evan Glass had proposed the measure in May 2026; the County Executive acted on the recommendation. The moratorium pauses new data-center permitting while county officials review grid-cost impacts on ratepayers and potential effects on affordable housing near future Red Line infrastructure. The Atmosphere Data Centers project in Dickerson and any other in-process applications not yet approved would be paused.
-
In effect
DeKalb County GA data-center moratorium (through Mar 30, 2027)
DeKalb County, Georgia · Effective 2026-06-09 · DeKalb County (GA) data-center moratorium extension through March 30, 2027 (adopted July 7, 2026)
DeKalb County, Georgia's moratorium on new data centers has been extended repeatedly. Most recently, on July 7, 2026, commissioners voted to extend the freeze through March 30, 2027 — the longest extension yet. The July extension followed a surprise June 23, 2026 commission vote to reject a set of proposed permanent data-center regulations from the Planning & Sustainability Department. That rejection reset the regulatory process, requiring a new attempt at permanent rules. The new extension directs the county CEO to coordinate departments (Public Safety, Transportation, Watershed Management, Public Health) to identify impacts on their operations. Originally enacted July 2025, extended December 2025, June 9, 2026, and again July 7, 2026.
-
In effect
Miami County IN data center moratorium (2026)
Miami County, IN · Effective 2026-05-04 · Miami County, Ind., Ordinance No. 05-04-2026 (Bd. of Comm'rs, adopted May 4, 2026)
The Board of Commissioners imposed a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of all applications and permits for data center construction or operation anywhere in unincorporated Miami County, effective immediately on adoption. It stays in effect until the county's Zoning Ordinance is amended to add rules specifically covering data centers — the Zoning Ordinance currently has none.
-
In effect
Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy
Montgomery County, PA · Effective 2025-11-18 · 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.
-
In effect
Allen County IN County AI Use Policy
Allen County, IN · Effective 2025-11-04 · 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.
-
In effect
Rutherford County TN County AI Use Policy
Rutherford County, TN · Effective 2025-10-21 · Rutherford County Mayor policy (2025) (2025-10-21)
Rutherford County TN adopted AI use policy for county employees: bars PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, and bans AI-only adverse decisions affecting residents.
-
In effect
Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government
Sonoma County, CA · Effective 2025-10-14 · 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.
-
In effect
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy
Fayette County, KY · Effective 2025-09-23 · 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.
-
In effect
Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy
Williamson County, TN · Effective 2025-09-09 · 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.
-
In effect
Lane County OR
Lane County, OR · Effective 2025-08-19 · 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.
-
In effect
City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy
Marion County, IN · Effective 2025-07-22 · 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.
-
In effect
Clackamas County OR Generative AI Use Policy
Clackamas County, OR · Effective 2025-07-01 · Clackamas County administrative order (2025) (2025-07-01)
Clackamas County issued a generative AI use policy for staff: prohibits CJIS, HIPAA, and PII entry into public LLMs; requires human-in-the-loop review; mandates departmental inventory of AI tools.
-
In effect
San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy
San Mateo County, CA · Effective 2025-06-10 · San Mateo County Manager policy (2025) (2025-06-10)
San Mateo County adopted AI use and governance policy: requires impact assessment before deployment of AI/ADS in resident-facing services, bans facial-recognition use by county departments without Board authorization, requires inventory of AI tools, and mandates annual public reporting.
-
In effect
Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy
Boulder County, CO · Effective 2025-05-13 · 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.
-
In effect
Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2025-04-30 · Montgomery County Executive Order 2-25 (AI) (2025-04-30)
Montgomery County Executive Order establishing AI governance framework: requires AI inventory, impact assessment before deployment in resident-facing services, mandatory human review of consequential decisions, prohibition on facial-recognition use by county departments without Council authorization, and annual public reporting.
-
In effect
Worcester County MD data center + cable landing moratorium (2026)
Worcester County, MD · Worcester County, Md. resolution (2026); number blank in the official draft
The resolution imposes a moratorium on the application for or issuance of permits for data centers and cable landing stations in Worcester County, and separately imposes a moratorium on all Board of Zoning Appeals proceedings related to those uses, each for twelve months or until the Commissioners rescind it. It defines a DATA CENTER as one or more buildings used primarily for the storage, management, processing and transmission of digital data. Critically, it separately defines a CABLE LANDING STATION as a facility where subsea cable systems terminate and digital data is transmitted to land-based telecommunications networks, and expressly provides that 'A cable landing station shall not include data storage, management, processing or computation' — a distinct legal category, not a subset of data centers.
-
In effect
Elmore County ID data center moratorium (2026)
Elmore County, ID · Elmore County, Idaho — Board of Commissioners resolution (date not specified in coverage, reported 2026-07-02)
Elmore County Commissioners unanimously approved a 182-day moratorium on new data center permits, citing concerns over water use, noise, land impacts, and the absence of existing regulation for the industry.
-
In effect
King County FR Ban
King County, WA · King County, Wash., Ordinance 19296 (June 1, 2021)
King County (the Seattle area) was the first US county to ban its government, including the Sheriff's Office, from using facial recognition technology. The unanimous 2021 ordinance also bars county agencies from getting facial recognition information through third parties. Remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance
Santa Clara County, CA · Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)
Santa Clara County passed the nation's first county-level surveillance oversight law in 2016. County departments must get Board of Supervisors approval, publish a surveillance use policy, and file an impact report before acquiring surveillance technology, plus annual reports afterward. Still actively administered by the County Privacy Office.
-
In effect
Two-year moratorium on data centers, crypto mining, battery storage
Anderson County, Tennessee · Effective 2026-06-16 · Anderson County, TN data-center moratorium (June 16, 2026)
Two-year moratorium on data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and battery storage facilities in Anderson County. The pause is intended to give the county time to research the topic, see what other jurisdictions are doing, and develop regulations before approving large-scale projects.
-
In effect
One-year data-center moratorium in unincorporated Boone County
Boone County, Indiana · Effective 2026-06-16 · Boone County (IN) one-year data-center moratorium (June 15, 2026)
One-year moratorium on new data center development in unincorporated Boone County and the town of Advance. Halts filing, processing, review, and acceptance of new data-center facility applications in those areas. Meant to allow study of land-use, infrastructure, utility, agricultural, and rural-character impacts. Boone County is the twelfth Indiana county to enact a data-center pause; Meta's LEAP-district campus (Lebanon) is unaffected.
-
In effect
Six-month data-center moratorium (Cumberland County, NC)
Cumberland County, North Carolina · Effective 2026-06-15 · Cumberland County (NC) six-month data-center moratorium (June 15, 2026)
Six-month moratorium on new data-center construction in unincorporated areas of Cumberland County. During this period, county staff will not review site plans or issue zoning and building permits for data centers. Ordinance defines data center as a facility 'housing critical information technology infrastructure ... used for cloud services, internet applications, and artificial intelligence workloads.' Does not apply within Fayetteville city limits.
-
In effect
First data center zoning regulations
St. Charles Parish, LA · Effective 2026-06-02 · First data center zoning regulations
The St. Charles Parish Council unanimously approved the parish's first data center zoning regulations, adding a definition and requiring 300-foot buffers from residential areas, landscape buffers, noise limits and generator-testing restrictions.
-
In effect
24-month moratorium on data center construction
Allen County, KY · Effective 2026-06-01 · 24-month moratorium on data center construction
Allen County passed a 24-month moratorium on data center construction citing noise and lifestyle concerns observed in neighboring Simpson County.
-
In effect
12-month moratorium on data centers
Dubuque County, IA · Effective 2026-05-26 · 12-month moratorium on data centers
The Dubuque County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 on May 26, 2026 to enact a 12-month moratorium on data centers while staff research and develop county zoning regulations for such facilities.
-
In effect
Rockdale County data-center + BESS moratorium extended through Sept 8
Rockdale County, Georgia · Effective 2026-05-13 · Rockdale County (GA) Res 2026-12 (May 13, 2026)
Extends the existing moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications related to the establishment or expansion of data centers and battery energy storage systems (BESS) through September 8, 2026. Amends Resolution 2026-01 (initial 180-day moratorium enacted March 2026 covering high-water-use facilities).
-
Proposed / pending
Calvert County data-center text amendments adopted May 5, 2026
Calvert County, Maryland · Effective 2026-05-05 · Calvert County, MD data-center text amendments (May 5, 2026)
Data center text amendments adopted by Calvert County BOCC. Amendments mandate closed-loop cooling systems, prohibit groundwater use for cooling, require developers to fund infrastructure upgrades, and enforce Tier 4 generator standards. Action taken May 5 after two prior failed motions (by Commissioners Mike Hart and Catherine Grasso) to enact a temporary 24-month moratorium.
-
In effect
Temporary moratorium on data centers, nuclear and hydrogen f
Saline County, KS · Effective 2026-03-17 · Temporary moratorium on data centers, nuclear and hydrogen facilities in unincorporated areas
The Saline County Commission voted 4-0 on March 17, 2026 to adopt a moratorium on new data center, nuclear power, and hydrogen facility applications in unincorporated areas, effective until March 1, 2029, to allow time to draft development regulations.
-
In effect
Data center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Linn County
Linn County, IA · Effective 2026-02-18 · Data center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Linn County
The Linn County Board of Supervisors adopted one of the nation's most comprehensive local data-center zoning ordinances on February 18, 2026, requiring water studies and water-use agreements, 1,000-foot residential setbacks, noise and light limits, and infrastructure-damage compensation.
-
In effect
Newton County data-center application moratorium
Newton County, Georgia · Effective 2026-02-17 · Newton County (GA) data-center moratorium (February 2026)
Moratorium on the acceptance of applications, requests, or submissions proposing the development of data centers in Newton County. Initial moratorium was 30 days; Newton County's ordinance specifies that data centers can only exist in the Stanton Springs overlay. Concerns include developers seeking annexation into incorporated areas (Covington, Social Circle, Porterdale).
-
In effect
Interim moratorium pausing data center applications
Sedgwick County, KS · Effective 2026-01-14 · Interim moratorium pausing data center applications
The Sedgwick County Commission first adopted an interim moratorium pausing new data center applications in January 2026 and has since extended it multiple times (most recently by 90 days to September 11) while planning staff develop zoning rules amid water, traffic, and public-safety concerns.
-
In effect
Moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Har
Harvey County, KS · Effective 2026-01-13 · Moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Harvey County
The Harvey County Commission unanimously approved a resolution on January 13, 2026 halting data-processing and data-storage facility construction in unincorporated areas through the end of 2028 while planning and zoning staff draft regulations.
-
In effect
Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC · Effective 2025-10-28 · 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.
-
In effect
MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband
Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2025-10-20 · MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband detection (LINEV Systems)
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deployed ten AI-assisted X-ray body scanners across six jail facilities to detect internally concealed contraband on inmates using automated anomaly detection and drug-detection software.
-
In effect
Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincor
King County, WA · Effective 2025-09-23 · Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincorporated King County
King County (sponsored by Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, passed Sept 23, 2025 as the 11th US jurisdiction) prohibits landlords in unincorporated King County from contracting with algorithmic rent-setting services like RealPage, letting harmed renters sue for up to $7,500 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.
-
In effect
District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use
Washington County School District, UT · Effective 2025-09-08 · 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.
-
In effect
Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (
Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL · Effective 2025-08-12 · Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines (tiered framework)
The Miami-Dade County Public Schools board approved a measure directing staff to create comprehensive ethical AI guidelines for students and teachers, including a tiered use framework and misuse-consequences, with recommendations due back to the board.
-
In effect
Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificia
Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL · Effective 2025-06-02 · 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.
-
In effect
Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortio
Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2025-05-09 · 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.
-
In effect
BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft
Broward County Public Schools, FL · Effective 2024-11-01 · 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.
-
In effect
King County GenAI Guidelines
King County, WA · Effective 2024-09-27 · 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.
-
In effect
RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detect
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) · Effective 2024-06-19 · RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detection Deployment
The RTC became the first US transit agency to deploy wide-scale ZeroEyes AI gun-detection analytics across its transit-center cameras, later expanding the program by over 300% to all eight transit centers.
-
In effect
Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder
Montgomery County, MD · Effective 2023-11-20 · Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Montgomery County Police launched a DFR program on November 20, 2023, limited to responding to calls for service, with no proactive surveillance, audio recording, or facial recognition and a warrant requirement for private areas.
-
In effect
Santa Cruz County AI Policy
Santa Cruz County, CA · Effective 2023-09-19 · County of Santa Cruz, AI Policy (Sept. 19, 2023)
Santa Cruz County adopted one of the earliest county-level AI policies in the US, approved in September 2023 and incorporated into the county's procedures manual. It governs how county employees may use AI (including generative AI), with safeguards for sensitive data and human accountability for outputs.
-
In effect
Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us
Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2023-04-01 · Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance use policy
The Spokane County Sheriff's RTCC fuses surveillance cameras, license plate readers, BriefCam video analytics, 911 and social media data for real-time intelligence while stating it does not use facial recognition biometric software and applies access controls and audits.
-
In effect
Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Moni
Central Bucks School District, PA · Effective 2023-03-01 · Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Monitoring Trial
Central Bucks SD (PA) authorized a district-wide trial of GoGuardian Beacon to conduct 24/7 AI monitoring of middle- and high-school students' online activity on district devices, with a potential $114,000+ subscription pending trial-data review.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use
King County, WA · Effective 2021-06-01 · Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use of facial recognition technology
King County became the first U.S. county to ban its administrative agencies and the Sheriff's Office from using facial recognition technology, with a narrow exception for the National Child Search Assistance Act.
-
In effect
King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202
King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) · Effective 2021-06-01 · King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 2021)
King County (which operates Sea-Tac's environs and the Sheriff's Office) became the first U.S. county to ban all county-agency use of facial recognition, though federal CBP use at Sea-Tac is unaffected.
-
In effect
Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial
Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) · Effective 2021-03-01 · Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The Orange County Sheriff's UAV policy sets rules for lawful, FAA Part 107-compliant drone operations, requiring mission briefs, after-action reports, and prohibiting missions that violate the public's privacy rights.
-
In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · Effective 2020-03-23 · Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD)
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's Cal-ID biometric network governs use of its facial recognition system, restricting acceptable search reasons, requiring training, data-quality assurance, retention/purging rules, and oversight for participating law-enforcement agencies.
-
In effect
Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technolog
Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office) · Effective 2019-04-01 · Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technologies 'Verus')
The Suffolk County Sheriff's jail deployed LEO Technologies' Verus AI, which uses Amazon speech-to-text to transcribe and keyword-flag inmate phone calls, monitoring over 2.5 million calls between April 2019 and May 2020.
-
In effect
Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detro
Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport) · Effective 2018-07-01 · Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detroit Metro Airport
Delta, the Wayne County Airport Authority and CBP deployed facial-recognition boarding at Detroit Metro, letting international passengers board by facial scan matched to CBP's photo gallery.
-
In effect
PA Allegheny AFST
Allegheny County, PA · Effective 2016-08-01 · Allegheny County DHS AFST Methodology (May 2019 update)
Allegheny County deploys a predictive risk model — the Allegheny Family Screening Tool — to score child-welfare hotline calls. Decisions to screen-in cases for investigation incorporate AFST scores. The DOJ has investigated the tool for ADA discrimination concerns; the county continues to operate it with documented protocols.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Washington County (MD) 12-month data center moratorium
Washington County · Washington County (MD) 12-month data center moratorium
The Washington County (Maryland) Commissioners voted 4-1 to approve a 12-month moratorium temporarily halting new data center applications.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium
Santa Fe County · Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium
The Santa Fe County Commission approved an 18-month moratorium pausing large-scale data center projects while the county develops land-use, energy, and water regulations.
-
Proposed / pending
Two-year moratorium on data center construction and operatio
Bell County, Kentucky · Two-year moratorium on data center construction and operation (ordinance, first reading)
The Bell County Fiscal Court unanimously approved the first reading of an ordinance imposing a two-year moratorium on the construction, development, and operation of data centers and data storage facilities, with a second-reading vote pending.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Union County ordinance establishing a moratorium on data cen
Union County · Union County ordinance establishing a moratorium on data centers
The Union County Quorum Court passed an ordinance during an emergency meeting establishing a moratorium that pauses approval of data center projects while the county reviews infrastructure, utility, and public-safety concerns.
-
Proposed / pending
Yellowstone County data center construction voter-approval i
Yellowstone County · Yellowstone County data center construction voter-approval initiative
A citizen ballot initiative gathering signatures for the November 2026 ballot would require approval from two-thirds of registered voters before any data center may be built or expanded in Yellowstone County.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Morris County resolution urging state oversight of data cent
Morris County · Morris County resolution urging state oversight of data center power and water use
The Morris County Commissioners Court unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Governor, Texas Legislature, PUC, and ERCOT to require data center developers to disclose projected power and water use, undergo independent impact reviews, and adopt water-efficient cooling.
-
Blocked / in litigation
In re: Frederick Cnty. Data Center Referendum (No. 67, Sept.
Frederick County · In re: Frederick Cnty. Data Center Referendum (No. 67, Sept. Term 2025)
The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that zoning changes creating Frederick County's 2,600-acre data center development zone (Ordinance 26.01.001) are not subject to a ballot referendum, keeping the data center zoning in force.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Ordinance 2026-32 - 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Develo
Cache County · Ordinance 2026-32 - 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Developments
The Cache County Council voted 6-0 to enact Ordinance 2026-32, a 180-day moratorium halting acceptance and review of data center applications in unincorporated areas while it reviews zoning codes.
-
In effect
Prince George's County 2-Year Data Center Development Morato
Prince George's County · Prince George's County 2-Year Data Center Development Moratorium
The Prince George's County Council is considering a two-year moratorium pausing approvals of new data center development.
-
In effect
Cherokee County GA 30-day data center moratorium (2026)
Cherokee County, GA · Cherokee County, Ga. Board of Commissioners, 2026-07-21 agenda item 6.3
The Cherokee County, Georgia Board of Commissioners took up a thirty-day moratorium on data centers at its regular meeting on 2026-07-21, added to the agenda by amendment as item 6.3. The stated purpose is to give Community Development Agency staff and the legal department time to draft an ordinance addressing the data center land use, which the county code does not currently regulate. In a separate agenda item, 6.4, the Board called a public hearing for 2026-08-18 to consider extending the moratorium; county staff have publicly stated they expect to request a 180-day extension at that hearing.
-
In effect
Bullitt County KY IT infrastructure moratorium (2026)
Bullitt County, KY · Bullitt County, Ky. Ordinance 26-18
Ordinance 26-18 imposes a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of applications related to IT infrastructure facilities in Bullitt County, Kentucky. The Bullitt County Fiscal Court's official agenda addendum for its 2026-07-07 regular meeting records item 13 as the first reading of 'Ordinance 26-18, Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Acceptance and Processing of Applications Related to IT Infrastructure Facilities'. Kentucky counties read ordinances twice, placing adoption at the next regular meeting on 2026-07-21. Press reporting states the Fiscal Court adopted it for a twelve-month period so that no new data center project can be considered while the county drafts IT development regulations and reworks its comprehensive plan, and that the Fiscal Court may terminate or extend the pause at any time.
-
Proposed / pending
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief
Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (BriefCam) contract
The Cook County Sheriff's Office proposed a $1.12M three-year BriefCam contract to add AI video analytics, facial recognition, and object identification across Cook County Jail's video, drawing opposition from 80 community groups.
-
Proposed / pending
Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni
Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) · Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recognition pilot contract
The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office asked the County Commission to approve a $17,100 one-year Clearview AI facial recognition pilot, but commissioners tabled it and required the office to first present a use policy and vet vendor data-sharing (including with ICE).
-
Proposed / pending
Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)
Wake County Public School System, NC · Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft)
Wake County Public School System advanced draft Policy 1910 on generative AI on June 17, 2026, which discourages AI detectors, requires students to disclose and explain AI use and cite it, and bars sharing student PII with certain AI systems, pending board approval.
-
Proposed / pending
Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Moni
Fort Bend Independent School District, TX · Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Monitoring Procurement
Fort Bend ISD's board approved a procurement of GoGuardian web content filtering and monitoring modules not to exceed $1.6 million over five years, part of a wave of Houston-area districts (including Humble ISD and Cypress-Fairbanks ISD) deploying AI-driven student-device monitoring.
-
Proposed / pending
Proposed one-year ban on AI data centers (Holmes County, FL)
Holmes County, Florida · Holmes County, FL proposed AI data-center moratorium (drafting initiated June 2, 2026)
Holmes County commissioners directed the county attorney to draft a one-year moratorium on AI data centers and a separate ordinance for a permanent ban; commission members noted no applications have yet been submitted but residents largely favor a permanent ban. Public hearing scheduled June 16, 2026.
-
Proposed / pending
Data center ZTA #25-187 (Charles County, MD) — Planning Commission recommended denial
Charles County, Maryland · Charles County (MD) ZTA #25-187 (Planning Commission action June 1, 2026)
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment that would define and permit (with conditions) a new land-use designation (7.01.130, Data Center) in the General Industrial (IG) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones. After a June 1, 2026 public hearing, the Charles County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial citing concerns over size limitations, decommissioning, environmental analysis, and community benefit agreements. Proposal now goes to the Board of County Commissioners for a final vote.
City / local government use of AI rules (201)
-
In effect
Hillsboro OR data center/battery storage moratorium (2026)
Hillsboro, OR · Effective 2026-07-27 · City of Hillsboro, Ore. — City Council special meeting action, 2026-07-27 (120-day moratorium)
The Hillsboro City Council voted at a special meeting Monday, July 27, 2026 to enact a 120-day moratorium blocking new or expanded data center and battery energy storage projects, running until at least November 24, 2026. The move follows concern over high electricity and water use, noise, tax incentives, and the limited number of jobs data centers create — and comes the same week local leaders, businesses, and farmers joined a separate lawsuit against the city and county over a series of enterprise-zone tax-break approvals for 17 proposed data-center projects.
-
In effect
Foster Twp PA data center zoning restriction (2026)
Foster Township, PA · Effective 2026-07-08 · Foster Township, Luzerne County, Pa. zoning ordinance amendment (adopted 2026-07-08); no ordinance number on the document
The amendment defines 'Data Center' — expressly including cryptocurrency mining, blockchain transaction processing and server farms — and 'Data Center Accessory Use', then sets the use table so data centers are NOT permitted in the B-2, B-3, A-1, C-1, I-1, I-2 and S-1 districts, and are allowed only as a conditional use in the AEO energy overlay district. New supplemental regulations impose a 2,000-foot setback from all property lines and from sensitive uses, a 40-foot height cap inclusive of roof-mounted equipment, a mandatory enclosing buffer, preliminary, interim and as-built acoustical studies enforcing a 65 dB(A) daytime limit, a vibration study, a water feasibility study with drawdown testing of wells within 3,000 feet and DRBC approval where thresholds are met, DEP/SEO wastewater approval, electric-provider capacity certification, NFPA 30/70/75/76/110/855 compliance, a fire-department-accepted Emergency Response Plan with applicant-funded municipal cost mitigation, and a decommissioning plan backed by bond or escrow reviewed bi-annually.
-
In effect
Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)
Portland, OR · Effective 2021-01-01 · Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 (private-sector); Council Action Sept. 9, 2020
On September 9, 2020, Portland, Oregon became the first U.S. city to ban both government AND private-sector use of facial recognition in places of public accommodation. The private-sector ban — codified at Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 — included a private right of action and remains the broadest municipal FR ban in the United States.
-
In effect
Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2019-11-14 · Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 (Ord. 7,676-N.S., 2019)
On October 15, 2019, Berkeley enacted Ordinance 7,676-N.S., prohibiting the City Manager and any city agent from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using facial recognition technology — making Berkeley the fourth U.S. city to ban government FR. Codified at Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
Oakland Government FR Ban (2019)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-08-15 · Oakland Mun. Code Ch. 9.64 (2019, expanded 2020)
On July 16, 2019, Oakland became the third U.S. city (after San Francisco and Somerville, MA) to ban government use of facial recognition. Council expanded the ban in December 2020 to also cover predictive policing and voice/gait biometric surveillance — the first U.S. city to do so. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-07-15 · S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B
San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban its own government — including police — from using facial recognition technology. The Board of Supervisors gave final passage 10-1 on June 4, 2019; the ordinance became law without the mayor's signature on June 14, 2019 and took effect July 15, 2019, codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B. It also requires Board approval and public use policies before city departments acquire any other surveillance technology. Still in effect 2026 and the template for municipal facial-recognition bans nationwide.
-
In effect
Somerville Face Surveillance Ban (2019, first East Coast)
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Somerville, Mass., Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance (June 27, 2019)
On June 27, 2019, Somerville, MA became the first East Coast city — and the second U.S. city overall after San Francisco — to ban its government from using face surveillance technology. Unanimous council vote. Catalyzed a Massachusetts municipal FR ban wave including Brookline, Cambridge, Northampton, and Springfield. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect
Village of Horseheads NY data center moratorium (2026)
Village of Horseheads, NY · Village of Horseheads, N.Y. Local Law No. 6 of 2026
The local law imposes a village-wide one-year moratorium barring the Board of Trustees, Planning Board, Code Enforcement Officer and any other village body or officer from beginning or continuing review of, or granting any approval for, a Data Processing Center, and bars issuance of building permits for such use while it is in effect. 'Data Processing Center' is defined broadly as a facility housing multiple banks of computers, modular container-based processor facilities, or server clusters, including uses related to AI processing and cryptocurrency mining. The Board may direct the Building Inspector or Code Enforcement Officer to revoke permits or certificates of occupancy issued in violation, and violations carry a civil penalty of $2,500 per day plus injunctive relief. A hardship-variance procedure runs through the Board of Trustees.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Berkeley Heights NJ data center ban (2026)
Berkeley Heights, NJ · Berkeley Heights Township, N.J. Ordinance 2026-13 (adopted 2026-07-21)
The Township Council voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 2026-13, which designates data centers as a prohibited use in every zoning district townwide. The council closed a public hearing that drew more than a dozen speakers before the final roll-call vote. Debate followed weeks of resident concern after rumblings of developer interest in the former Nokia property, though no specific data-center redevelopment application at that site was reported.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Hardyston NJ data center ban (2026)
Hardyston Township, NJ · Hardyston Township, N.J. Ordinance 2026-12 (adopted 2026-06-24)
The Township Council unanimously passed Ordinance 2026-12, banning data centers from being built anywhere in Hardyston Township, in every zoning district. Officials noted no developer had actually proposed a data center in the township — this is a proactive, preemptive ban.
-
In effect
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Oakland, CA · Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64
Oakland requires City Council approval and public use policies before city agencies acquire any surveillance technology, and bans city use of facial recognition. In December 2020 the city added first-in-the-nation bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (such as voice and gait recognition). Remains in effect, overseen by Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.
-
In effect
Portland (Maine) Facial Surveillance Ban
Portland, ME · Portland, Me., facial surveillance ban (Aug. 2020), as amended by Question B (Nov. 2020)
Portland, Maine's City Council banned city employees, including police, from using facial surveillance in August 2020, and voters strengthened the ban that November by passing Question B, which lets people sue the city for violations. Because it was enacted by referendum, the council could not amend it for five years. Remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Toccoa GA data center moratorium (2026)
Toccoa, GA · Effective 2026-07-27 · City of Toccoa, Ga. — City Commission, unanimous vote, 2026-07-27
The Toccoa City Commission unanimously approved a data center moratorium at its meeting Monday, July 27, 2026, running through January 11, 2027, to give the city more time to research data centers' size, lighting, traffic, noise, and water-consumption impacts before adopting permanent rules. Neither the city nor surrounding Stephens County has received any data center applications yet.
-
In effect
Palo IA EU-1 Data Center District (2026)
Palo, IA · Effective 2026-07-22 · Palo, Iowa Ordinance No. 93-2026, amending Code of Ordinances ch. 165
Ordinance No. 93-2026 adds Section 165.16A to the Palo zoning code, creating the EU-1 Data Center Exclusive Use District in which data centers are the permitted principal use. A data center must be rezoned to EU-1 unless already located there, and must submit a major site plan for review before approval. Before the first building permit the applicant must supply electric line and access-road locations, written verification from the power provider that the proposed load can be served, a full-cutoff lighting plan, an approved Road Use Agreement, a pre-construction noise analysis, an emergency response plan coordinated with local first responders and Linn County Emergency Management, and a drought and water-supply section permitting surface-water and groundwater monitoring wells with water-level emergency triggers. This is a permissive zoning framework with conditions attached, not a moratorium.
-
In effect
Chamblee GA data center moratorium (2026)
Chamblee, GA · Effective 2026-07-21 · City of Chamblee, Ga. resolution (adopted 2026-07-21); number blank in the packet copy
The Mayor and Council adopted a resolution imposing a complete suspension on the City's acceptance of any applications relating to the establishment of new data centers. The suspension expressly covers applications for special land use permits, rezonings, land disturbance permits, building permits, business licenses, and certificates of occupancy. The resolution defines a data center as a physical room, building or facility housing infrastructure for building, running, delivering or transmitting applications and services, or for storing and managing associated data. The City Manager must notify staff, and during the period the Mayor and Council with staff will research data center impacts and consider Code revisions.
-
In effect
Ellsworth WI temporary data center ordinance (2026)
Ellsworth, WI · Effective 2026-07-21 · Village of Ellsworth, Wis. — Plan Commission action, July 21, 2026 (2-year temporary ordinance)
The village's Plan Commission unanimously approved a temporary, two-year ordinance blocking data center development, adopted July 21, 2026.
-
In effect
Watchung Hills NJ AI policy 2365 (2026)
Watchung Hills Regional High School District, NJ · Effective 2026-07-14 · 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.
-
In effect
One-year citywide data-center moratorium (Spokane)
Spokane · Effective 2026-06-22 · Spokane one-year citywide data center moratorium ordinance (adopted June 22, 2026)
Spokane City Council voted 6-1 on June 22, 2026 to impose an immediate one-year citywide moratorium on building permit applications for new computer data centers. The ordinance was amended before passage to focus on data-center activity rather than building type. Gives the city one year to develop a permanent regulatory framework.
-
In effect
Berkeley CA "The Berkeley Rule" AI Policy (2026)
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2026-03-10 · 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.
-
In effect
Portland OR GenAI Policy
Portland, OR · Effective 2026-03-06 · City of Portland, BTS GenAI Use Policy (2024)
City of Portland Bureau of Technology Services policy on generative AI use by city employees, with required disclosure and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
NYC GUARD Act (Gov't AI Accountability)
New York City, NY · Effective 2025-12-26 · NYC Council Int. Nos. 199-A, 926-A, 1024-A (GUARD Act, passed Nov. 25, 2025; lapsed into law Dec. 26, 2025; Intro 1024-A = Local Law 195 of 2025)
The NYC City Council unanimously passed three bills on November 25, 2025 known as the GUARD Act (Guaranteeing Unbiased AI Regulation and Disclosure), creating independent oversight of city government AI use. The package creates an independent Office of Algorithmic Data Accountability, sets mandatory fairness-testing and transparency standards for all agency AI tools, and requires a public registry of every AI system that has undergone a pre-deployment assessment. Because Mayor Adams neither signed nor vetoed the bills within the 30-day window, they lapsed into law on December 26, 2025. Intro 1024-A was assigned Local Law 195 of 2025; the Local Law numbers for Intros 199-A and 926-A still await Legistar confirmation.
-
In effect
DC AI Training Mandate
Washington, DC · Effective 2025-04-01 · OCTO Responsible AI Training Program (effective 2025)
DC became the first major US city to mandate Responsible AI training for all DC government employees and contractors, delivered by OCTO with InnovateUS to operationalize the DC AI Values and OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy.
-
In effect
Oakland GenAI Policy
Oakland, CA · Effective 2024-12-01 · City of Oakland ITD, Interim Security Guidelines for AI Usage (2024)
City of Oakland Information Technology Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
Philadelphia Bill 240823 — Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban
Philadelphia, PA · Effective 2024-11-13 · Philadelphia Bill No. 240823 (adopted Oct. 24, 2024; signed Nov. 13, 2024; effective Nov. 13, 2024)
Philadelphia's Bill 240823 (sponsored by Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke, passed 17-0 on October 24, 2024 and signed November 13, 2024) bars landlords from using revenue-management software that pools private competitor leasing data to coordinate rents, with fines up to $2,000 per violation and a private right of action for tenants. On July 28, 2026 three class-action lawsuits were filed — the first known enforcement actions under the ordinance — against Willow Bridge Property Co. and RealPage Inc.
-
In effect
Phoenix GenAI AUP
Phoenix, AZ · Effective 2024-03-01 · City of Phoenix, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Phoenix Information Technology Services Department policy on city employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure rules and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
DC AI Values Mayor's Order
Washington, DC · Effective 2024-02-08 · 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.
-
In effect
San Jose AI Reviews Board
San Jose, CA · Effective 2023-08-01 · City of San Jose, AI Reviews Board (2023)
City of San Jose established an internal AI Reviews Board to review AI tools used by city departments and helped launch the multi-city GovAI Coalition for shared AI procurement standards.
-
In effect
Boston Interim GenAI Guidelines
Boston, MA · Effective 2023-05-18 · City of Boston, Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI (May 18, 2023)
Boston Mayor's Office interim guidelines authorizing limited use of generative AI tools by city employees with required disclosure and prohibitions on entering sensitive data.
-
In effect
St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance
St. Louis, MO · Effective 2022-04-29 · Ord. 71842 (BB 185) (2022-04-29)
24th U.S. CCOPS law; requires Board of Aldermen approval and impact reports for any city surveillance technology including face-recognition, ALPRs, predictive policing.
-
In effect
Yellow Springs Use of Surveillance Technology (Codified Ord. Ch. 607)
Yellow Springs, OH · Effective 2022-04-04 · Ord. 2022-09 (2022-04-04)
CCOPS ordinance requiring council approval, cost-benefit + civil-liberties findings before adoption of any surveillance technology.
-
In effect
NYC EO 3 / Citywide AI Policy
New York City, NY · Effective 2022-01-19 · N.Y.C. Exec. Order No. 3 (Jan. 19, 2022)
Mayoral executive order consolidating NYC's technology agencies by redesignating the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications as the Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI), which oversees the Mayor's Office of Data Analytics, the Chief Technology Officer, the Office of Information Privacy, NYC Cyber Command, NYC 311, and the Algorithms Management and Policy office.
-
In effect
NYC Algorithmic Tools Reporting (LL35)
New York City, NY · Effective 2022-01-15 · NYC Admin. Code § 3-119.5 (Local Law 35 of 2022)
Every NYC agency must publicly report, each year, every algorithmic tool it used to make or assist decisions that materially affect the public's rights, benefits, or access to services. Reports must describe each tool's purpose, the data it uses, and any vendor involvement, and are published as an open dataset.
-
In effect
Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology
Worcester, MA · Effective 2021-12-14 · Worcester Ord. (Dec. 2021) (2021-12-14)
Eighth MA municipality to ban government use of face surveillance; bars city officials from obtaining, retaining, requesting, or using FR systems.
-
In effect
Bellingham Initiative 2
Bellingham, WA · Effective 2021-11-02 · Bellingham Initiative 2 (2021) (2021-11-02)
Voter-approved (57%) ban on city acquisition or use of face-recognition and predictive-policing technologies.
-
In effect
Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Palo Alto, CA · Effective 2021-04-26 · Ord. 5485 (2021-04-26)
CCOPS-model ordinance requiring council approval and annual reports for police/city surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Syracuse Surveillance Policy
Syracuse, NY · Effective 2020-12-15 · Syracuse Surveillance Technology Policy (Dec. 2020)
Mayor Walsh executive order created a citywide Surveillance Technology Policy and a 9-employee/6-community Working Group that biweekly reviews each department's proposed surveillance technologies.
-
In effect
Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies
Pittsburgh, PA · Effective 2020-09-22 · Pittsburgh File 2020-0647 (2020-09-22)
Requires council approval before city or police use of face-recognition or predictive-policing tools (state JNET excluded).
-
In effect
Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Eugene, OR · Effective 2020-09-14 · Ord. 20618 (2020-09-14)
Requires council approval and impact reports for any city surveillance acquisition or use.
-
In effect
Portland City-Government FR Ban
Portland, OR · Effective 2020-09-09 · Portland, Or., city-bureau face recognition ban ordinance (Sept. 9, 2020)
Portland bans all city bureaus, including the Portland Police Bureau, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology. Adopted the same day as the separate private-sector ban; remains in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition
Jackson, MS · Effective 2020-08-18 · Jackson Ord. (Aug. 2020) (2020-08-18)
Bars Jackson PD and city agencies from acquiring or using biometric face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Easthampton Face Surveillance Ban
Easthampton, MA · Effective 2020-07-01 · Easthampton Ord. (2020) (2020-07-01)
Unanimous council ordinance prohibiting city use of face-surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Boston Face Surveillance Ban
Boston, MA · Effective 2020-06-24 · Boston, Mass., Code of Ordinances 16-62 (2020)
Boston bans all city departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems. City officials also may not ask third parties or other agencies to run facial recognition searches on their behalf.
-
In effect
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)
First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.
-
In effect
Springfield Face Surveillance Ban / Moratorium
Springfield, MA · Effective 2020-05-04 · Springfield Ord. (2020) (2020-05-04)
Bans Springfield police and city agencies from using face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Northampton Face Surveillance Ban
Northampton, MA · Effective 2019-12-19 · Ord. 19.176 (2019-12-19)
Prohibits Northampton from collecting or using biometric face-surveillance information.
-
In effect
Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance
Alameda, CA · Effective 2019-12-17 · Ord. 3247 (2019-12-17)
Council adopted a surveillance-oversight ordinance with an explicit prohibition on city use of face-recognition technology.
-
In effect
Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS)
Lawrence, MA · Effective 2018-09-04 · Lawrence Ord. (Sept. 2018) (2018-09-04)
First MA CCOPS ordinance; requires council approval and use policies for any city surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07)
Davis, CA · Effective 2018-03-20 · Ord. 2510 (2018-03-20)
Requires council approval, impact reports, and use policies before any city acquisition or use of surveillance tech (early CCOPS).
-
In effect
SF delivery-robot permit (2017)
San Francisco · Effective 2018-01-21 · S.F. Pub. Works Code § 794
San Francisco became the first U.S. city to comprehensively restrict sidewalk delivery robots after constituent backlash. Supervisor Norman Yee's ordinance limits autonomous delivery devices to a small permit program (initially 9 city-wide and 3 per company), bans them from most sidewalks, caps speed at 3 mph in pedestrian zones, and requires a human chaperone.
-
In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance
Seattle, WA · Effective 2017-09-01 · Seattle Ordinance 125376 (2017), SMC ch. 14.18, as amended 2018
Seattle requires city departments to get City Council approval before acquiring or using surveillance technologies, supported by public Surveillance Impact Reports and review by a community working group. One of the earliest and most comprehensive municipal surveillance-oversight laws in the country.
-
In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18)
Seattle, WA · Effective 2017-08-02 · Ord. 125376 (2017-08-02)
Requires council review and approval of all city surveillance technologies, with public process and use policies.
-
In effect
Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080)
Nashville, TN · Effective 2017-05-16 · Ord. BL2017-646 (2017-05-16)
Requires Metro Council approval before any law-enforcement deployment or contracting of surveillance technology on public rights-of-way.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Akron OH data center review process (2026)
Akron, OH · City of Akron, Ohio — City Council, unanimous vote, 2026-07-27
Akron City Council unanimously passed a new zoning process for data centers on July 27, 2026, after two public hearings the same day. Data centers are now a defined land use requiring conditional-use approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council, and developers must disclose the project's impact on the electric grid, water consumption, the sanitary sewer system, and noise. Mayor Shammas Malik's administration crafted the proposal in response to resident concerns.
-
In effect
Lochbuie CO data center moratorium (2026)
Lochbuie, CO · Town of Lochbuie, Colo. Ordinance No. 2026-720
Ordinance No. 2026-720 imposes a temporary moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, review and approval of all applications for any Town permit, license, land use approval or other approval for any data center within the Town of Lochbuie, and directs staff to refuse to accept for filing and to stop processing pending applications during the moratorium. It defines 'Data Center' broadly as any facility housing networked servers and IT equipment for off-site or on-site digital services; any facility whose primary use is storage, processing, management or transmission of digital data or support for cloud computing or AI services; or any computing or data-storage facility with electrical demand of 1 MW or greater, potable or non-potable water service exceeding 1% of the average-day capacity of the Town's water treatment plant, or wastewater discharge at or above 1% of the average-day capacity of its wastewater treatment plant. Continued operation of existing data centers is excluded, but expansions are subject to the moratorium.
-
In effect
Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban
Cambridge, MA · Cambridge, Mass., Mun. Code ch. 2.128, FR ban amendment (Jan. 13, 2020)
Cambridge requires City Council approval and impact reports before city departments use surveillance technology, and a unanimous January 2020 amendment banned city use of face surveillance. Surveillance impact reports were still being filed with the council in 2024–2025.
-
In effect
Brookline Face Surveillance Ban
Brookline, MA · Town of Brookline, Mass., General By-Laws (Warrant Art. 25, 2019)
Brookline's Town Meeting voted 179–8 in December 2019 to ban town government use of face surveillance, making it the fifth US municipality to do so. The by-law bars town departments, including police, from obtaining or using face surveillance systems.
-
In effect
Minneapolis FR Ban
Minneapolis, MN · Minneapolis, Minn., FR Ban Ordinance (Feb. 12, 2021)
Minneapolis bans city departments, including the police department, from procuring facial recognition technology or using data derived from it, with a council-approved exceptions process and annual reporting. No repeal or weakening amendment was found — the ordinance appears to remain in effect as of June 2026.
-
In effect
Madison Face Surveillance Ban
Madison, WI · Madison, Wis., Gen. Ordinances §§ 23.63–23.64
Madison bans city agencies, including police, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology, with narrow exceptions for identifying victims of human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, and missing children. Works alongside the city's surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual compliance reports.
-
In effect
Onalaska WI AI policy 7540.08 revision (2026)
School District of Onalaska, WI · Effective 2026-07-13 · School District of Onalaska Policy 7540.08 (revised 2026-07-13)
The Onalaska Board of Education approved a revision to Policy 7540.08 — Artificial Intelligence at its 2026-07-13 regular meeting; the signed minutes record 'Motion by T. Marshik, second by B. Haefs, to approve Policy 7540.08 - Artificial Intelligence. Motion carried.' The policy as currently published binds both students and staff, states that the district recognizes the potential benefits of AI, authorizes the Superintendent to support AI use aligned with district mission and goals, and requires all AI implementation to comply with state and federal law. Students who violate the policy face discipline up to suspension or expulsion, staff face discipline up to suspension or termination, and the administration will refer any illegal acts to law enforcement.
-
In effect
Paris TN temporary data center moratorium (2026)
Paris, TN · Effective 2026-06-30 · City of Paris, Tenn. — Paris Commission action, June 30, 2026 (voice vote)
The Paris Commission voted (voice vote, all present in favor, one commissioner absent) on June 30, 2026 to enact a temporary moratorium on data centers. It has no fixed end date — it remains in effect until an outside consultant finishes reworking the city's zoning ordinances, which the city attorney estimated could take almost a year.
-
In effect
120-day moratorium on new data center applications
Springfield, Missouri · Effective 2026-06-29 · 120-day moratorium on new data center applications
Springfield's City Council voted 8-0 to pause acceptance of new data center applications for 120 days (through November 17, 2026) while the city develops a public-interest evaluation framework covering land use, utility, noise, and air impacts.
-
In effect
One-year moratorium on data center development (Inver Grove Heights MN)
Inver Grove Heights · Effective 2026-06-26 · Inver Grove Heights interim moratorium ordinance on data centers (June 26, 2026)
Inver Grove Heights City Council voted 3-2 on June 26, 2026 to approve a one-year interim moratorium on new data center development while the city studies zoning, infrastructure, and land-use impacts. The vote came after a developer with a pending proposal at the former Travel Tags property on Carmen Avenue threatened more than $150 million in damages if the moratorium passed.
-
In effect
Milton GA 30-day data-center moratorium (June 2026)
Milton, Georgia · Effective 2026-06-18 · Milton (GA) City Council unanimous resolution — 30-day data-center moratorium (June 18, 2026)
The Milton, Georgia City Council voted unanimously on June 18, 2026 to impose a 30-day moratorium on all data center activity in the city — covering new applications, permits, rezoning requests, business licenses, and certificates of occupancy — while the city reviews its land-use policies for such facilities. Milton is an affluent north Fulton County suburb in the Atlanta metro area.
-
In effect
San Marcos citywide data center ban (Land Use Matrix amendme
San Marcos · Effective 2026-06-16 · San Marcos citywide data center ban (Land Use Matrix amendment)
The San Marcos City Council voted 4-3 to amend its development code's Land Use Matrix to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts, making it the first Texas city to ban them (though later partly preempted by state SB 2272).
-
In effect
Emergency 365-day moratorium on new data centers (>20 MVA)
Seattle · Effective 2026-06-09 · Seattle CB 121214 (2026)
Emergency 365-day temporary freeze on new data center siting in Seattle. Defines data centers as facilities with power capacity over 20 megavolt-amperes (MVA) used primarily to store and process digital data. May be extended for an additional six months. A public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption.
-
In effect
Resolution setting Seattle data-center impact-study framework
Seattle · Effective 2026-06-09 · Seattle Res 32204 (2026)
Companion resolution to CB 121214. Calls for impact studies on data centers' effects on electrical grid reliability, water consumption, environmental sustainability, utility rates, land use, employment, public health, and community welfare. Requests coordinated cross-departmental action to develop future policies.
-
In effect
Moratorium on data center permits, development plans and zon
Lexington-Fayette Urban County, KY · Effective 2026-06-09 · Moratorium on data center permits, development plans and zone changes
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council unanimously enacted a moratorium pausing data center permits, development-plan acceptances and zone changes through October 31, 2026, while it drafts a zoning ordinance text amendment for data centers.
-
In effect
Six-month moratorium on data centers >350,000 sq ft (Minneapolis)
Minneapolis · Effective 2026-05-22 · Minneapolis interim data center moratorium ordinance (May 22, 2026)
Six-month moratorium on the construction, re-establishment, or expansion of data centers larger than 350,000 square feet anywhere in Minneapolis. As an interim ordinance, it took effect immediately and did not require the mayor's signature. Exempts data center projects under 350,000 sq ft within the downtown core.
-
In effect
Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr
Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · Effective 2026-05-22 · Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Program
Metro Nashville Police runs a DFR trial using three Skydio drones dispatched only to specific emergency calls, with no facial recognition or routine patrol and non-evidentiary footage deleted after 7 days.
-
In effect
Indianapolis-Marion County data-center pause resolution
Indianapolis/Marion County · Effective 2026-05-04 · Indianapolis City-County Council data-center pause resolution (May 4, 2026)
Special resolution unanimously approved by the Indianapolis City-County Council calling on the city's Metropolitan Development Commission to temporarily stop approving new data centers. Accompanied by ongoing drafting of a zoning ordinance setting a maximum 65 dB noise limit at property lines, restrictions on backup-generator testing, required physical buffers (berms, fencing, tree lines), and disclosure of power/water capacity and infrastructure connections.
-
In effect
One-year moratorium on data center development
Cave City, KY · Effective 2026-05-01 · One-year moratorium on data center development
Cave City, a small community near Mammoth Cave National Park, passed a one-year moratorium on data center development after being approached by a developer.
-
In effect
Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn
Austin, TX · Effective 2026-04-23 · Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology (TRUST) Act
After letting its Flock ALPR contract expire in 2025, the Austin City Council passed the TRUST Act requiring council approval and public review before departments can acquire, use, or share data from surveillance technology like license plate readers and drones.
-
In effect
OKC emergency data-center moratorium through end of 2026
Oklahoma City · Effective 2026-04-22 · Oklahoma City data-center emergency moratorium (April 22, 2026)
Emergency moratorium on new zoning and development applications for data centers in Oklahoma City through the end of 2026. Specifically prohibits rezoning requests for data centers and creates an appeals process for projects seeking exemption. Two proposed data centers already in the permitting pipeline are exempt.
-
In effect
Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Tampa, FL · Effective 2026-03-01 · Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program
Tampa PD operates a Skydio-based DFR pilot in the Ybor and Downtown areas governed by Florida Statute 934.50, prohibiting facial recognition, weaponization, and warrantless surveillance of private areas.
-
In effect
Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (
Orlando, FL · Effective 2026-02-24 · Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program (Axon contract approved by City Council)
Orlando City Council approved a $6.83M Axon DFR program on February 24, 2026, deploying 11 drones across 9 rooftop docking stations for automated 911-call response, governed by state law and limited to specific calls rather than mass surveillance.
-
In effect
Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia
Milwaukee, WI · Effective 2026-02-06 · Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facial recognition technology
After sustained public opposition, the Milwaukee Police Department announced it would not use or acquire facial recognition technology pending a formal policy, a moratorium the Common Council can modify or reject.
-
In effect
Data center moratorium (4 months with extension option)
Lenox Township, MI · Effective 2026-02-02 · Data center moratorium (4 months with extension option)
The Charter Township of Lenox adopted a moratorium on new data center development effective February 2, 2026, to review zoning, infrastructure capacity and land-use impacts.
-
In effect
Temporary moratorium on new data centers
New Orleans, LA · Effective 2026-01-28 · Temporary moratorium on new data centers
The New Orleans City Council imposed a temporary moratorium of up to two years on new data centers, server farms and cryptocurrency mining facilities and directed the Planning Commission to draft a data center zoning classification.
-
In effect
Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)
San Francisco Unified School District, CA · Effective 2026-01-20 · Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance)
San Francisco Unified published generative and agentic AI guidance for staff covering recommended uses, hallucination and privacy risks, and unreliability of AI plagiarism checkers, noting it is guidance rather than board-approved policy.
-
In effect
Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual pu
Columbia, MO · Effective 2025-12-31 · Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual public surveillance reports (Code Sec. 21-61)
Columbia's surveillance technology ordinance (Code of Ordinances Article IV, Sec. 21-61) requires the police department to document and publicly report its use of surveillance technology to the City Council each year, including data-sharing, complaints, and audit results.
-
In effect
Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2025-12-09 · Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'material breach of trust'
After suspending its Flock cameras in October 2025 over fears data could reach ICE in violation of the city's sanctuary ordinance, Cambridge terminated the contract when Flock installed cameras without authorization.
-
In effect
San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL
San Marcos, TX · Effective 2025-12-02 · San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety ALPR contract
The City Council voted on December 2, 2025 to discontinue its Flock Safety contract, and all city-contracted Flock cameras were deactivated and removed as of February 1, 2026.
-
In effect
180-day data center moratorium
Springfield Township, MI · Effective 2025-12-01 · 180-day data center moratorium
The Springfield Township Board of Trustees approved a 180-day moratorium barring data center plans from being accepted or approved and directing the planning commission to amend the zoning ordinance.
-
In effect
Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithm
Portland, OR · Effective 2025-11-19 · Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithmic rental pricing (City Code 30.01.088)
Portland's Ordinance 192122 (passed 8-2 on Nov 19, 2025, effective ~Feb 2026) bans the sale and use of revenue-management 'algorithmic devices' that analyze competitor data to coordinate rents, with fines and a tenant right to sue up to $1,000 per violation.
-
In effect
Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa
Evanston, IL · Effective 2025-08-26 · Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Safety contract
Evanston deactivated all 19 of its Flock cameras and issued a termination notice effective September 26, 2025 after a state audit found Flock illegally shared Illinois data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
-
In effect
CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) · Effective 2025-07-24 · CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,500 cameras)
The CTA board approved a $1.2M contract to expand ZeroEyes AI gun-detection software from 250 to 1,500 platform cameras by mid-2026, over civil-liberties objections about public input and effectiveness.
-
In effect
Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7.
Seattle, WA · Effective 2025-06-24 · Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7.34)
Seattle's CB 121000 (sponsored by Councilmember Cathy Moore, passed 7-0 on June 24, 2025, signed July 1, 2025) prohibits landlords from using software that runs automated analysis of housing-market data to generate inflated rent recommendations, with penalties up to $7,500 per violation and a tenant private right of action.
-
In effect
Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (o
City and County of Honolulu, HI · Effective 2025-06-04 · Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (one-year pilot)
The Honolulu City Council approved Resolution 3332 on June 4, 2025 launching a one-year pilot to expand public-park surveillance cameras from about 16 to roughly 45 parks, with 30-day footage retention and a required HPD effectiveness report to the Council.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms
Providence, RI · Effective 2025-05-15 · Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms
Providence (ordinance by Council President Rachel Miller, final passage May 15, 2025) bans landlords from using price-fixing rental algorithms like RealPage, with civil penalties up to $500 per day per instance of violation.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software
Jersey City, NJ · Effective 2025-05-14 · Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software
Jersey City passed a ban on algorithmic rent-setting software in May 2025 after statewide New Jersey efforts stalled, prohibiting landlords from using coordinated pricing algorithms.
-
In effect
Austin AI Governance Resolution (2025)
Austin, TX · Effective 2025-04-24 · City of Austin, Tex., Resolution 20250424-055 (adopted Apr. 24, 2025)
The Austin City Council voted unanimously on April 24, 2025 to adopt Resolution 20250424-055, establishing an ethical AI governance framework for municipal operations. The resolution prohibits real-time employee surveillance by AI, bans AI-based productivity scoring or behavioral monitoring without human supervisor review and verification, bars AI from automated policing decisions, and creates a 'no displacement without consultation' labor policy guaranteeing that no AI system will significantly alter or eliminate job classifications without prior notice and consultation with affected employees and their unions. It also requires an annual public audit of all city AI use, mandates human review and oversight for all AI-influenced decisions, and directs the City Manager to study the environmental and equity impacts of data centers in the region. Sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes.
-
Proposed / pending
Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting device
Berkeley, CA · Effective 2025-03-11 · Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting devices (Berkeley City Council, March 11, 2025; suspended 2025 pending RealPage litigation)
Berkeley's City Council voted 8-1 in March 2025 to prohibit landlords from using algorithms to coordinate rent prices or manage vacancies. The ban was subsequently suspended by a follow-up Council ordinance after RealPage filed a First Amendment lawsuit challenging the measure. The suspension ordinance's second reading was scheduled for July 8, 2025; a November 2025 amendment extended the suspension to March 1, 2026. Post-March 2026 status remains unclear — RealPage litigation is ongoing. The ban is currently NOT being enforced.
-
In effect
Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook
Houston Independent School District, TX · Effective 2024-11-01 · Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook
Houston ISD released a comprehensive generative-AI guidebook with age-based access rules (supervised pre-approved tools under 14; 14+ with parental consent and teacher permission) plus data-privacy and academic-integrity guidance for students and staff.
-
In effect
Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-10-14 · Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to set rents (Administrative Code / Rent Ordinance Section 37.10C)
San Francisco, the first US city to do so, bans landlords from selling or using algorithmic revenue-management software that uses non-public competitor data to recommend rents or occupancy levels, with civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation plus damages and attorneys' fees.
-
In effect
Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime
Seattle, WA · Effective 2024-10-01 · Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime Prevention Technology Pilot legislation
Seattle's Real-Time Crime Center was authorized under the city's surveillance ordinance through a Council-approved Surveillance Impact Report, requiring Council sign-off for material changes and an independent Office of Inspector General evaluation of its analytics.
-
In effect
Dallas GenAI Directive
Dallas, TX · Effective 2024-09-01 · City of Dallas Admin. Directive, Generative AI Use (2024)
City of Dallas administrative directive on generative AI use by employees, with disclosure, prohibited data, and review requirements.
-
In effect
Hartford GenAI Policy
Hartford, CT · Effective 2024-09-01 · City of Hartford MHIS, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Hartford administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Greensboro GenAI Policy
Greensboro, NC · Effective 2024-09-01 · City of Greensboro IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Greensboro administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review requirements.
-
In effect
OKC GenAI Policy
Oklahoma City, OK · Effective 2024-09-01 · City of OKC IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Oklahoma City administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Salem OR GenAI Policy
Salem, OR · Effective 2024-09-01 · City of Salem OR IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Salem OR administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Hialeah GenAI Policy
Hialeah, FL · Effective 2024-09-01 · City of Hialeah, Resolution No. 2024-346 (2024)
City of Hialeah administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige
Chappaqua Central School District, NY · Effective 2024-08-29 · Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration
Chappaqua CSD's board-adopted GenAI policy prohibits district users from inputting FERPA-protected student data or Education Law 2-d protected information into AI systems, requires use of only Ed Law 2-d compliant approved tools with students, and mandates transparency about how AI is used.
-
In effect
KCMO GenAI Policy
Kansas City, MO · Effective 2024-08-01 · City of Kansas City MO, GenAI Use Policy (2024)
City of Kansas City Missouri administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review requirements.
-
In effect
Providence GenAI Policy
Providence, RI · Effective 2024-08-01 · City of Providence IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Providence administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Tulsa GenAI Policy
Tulsa, OK · Effective 2024-08-01 · City of Tulsa IT Dept., AI Policy No. 1300-COP-AI-POLICY (eff. Feb. 25, 2026)
City of Tulsa administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Birmingham AL GenAI Policy
Birmingham, AL · Effective 2024-08-01 · City of Birmingham AL, Interim Guidelines For Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (2024)
City of Birmingham AL administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Henderson NV GenAI Policy
Henderson, NV · Effective 2024-08-01 · City of Henderson NV IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Henderson NV administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff
Chicago Public Schools, IL · Effective 2024-08-01 · CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff, families, administrators)
Chicago Public Schools published an AI Guidebook giving human-in-the-loop generative-AI guidance for students, staff, families, and administrators, requiring teacher permission and AI-use citation by students and barring confidential data in AI tools.
-
In effect
Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo
Vancouver Public Schools, WA · Effective 2024-08-01 · Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Monitoring Contract
Vancouver Public Schools (WA) signed a $328,036 three-year Gaggle Safety Management contract to run AI monitoring of 24,000+ students' typing on district devices at school and at home to flag violence, self-harm, and safety concerns.
-
In effect
Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5
Detroit, MI · Effective 2024-07-15 · Detroit Police Dep't Directive 307.5 (rev. June 28, 2024)
After three wrongful arrests of Black men from faulty facial recognition matches, Detroit settled a lawsuit and updated its policy: police cannot make an arrest based solely on a facial recognition match and must corroborate with independent evidence.
-
In effect
San Diego GenAI Policy
San Diego, CA · Effective 2024-07-01 · City of San Diego Admin. Reg., Generative AI Use (2024)
San Diego administrative policy governing employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data-handling, and prohibited-use rules.
-
In effect
Metro Nashville GenAI Policy
Nashville, TN · Effective 2024-07-01 · Metro Nashville ITS, ISM-20: Artificial Intelligence and Generative Artificial Intelligence Use (Aug 2025)
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County administrative policy on generative AI tool use by employees, with disclosure and data-handling rules.
-
In effect
Reno GenAI Policy
Reno, NV · Effective 2024-07-01 · City of Reno IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Reno administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Wilmington DE GenAI Policy
Wilmington, DE · Effective 2024-07-01 · City of Wilmington DE IT Dept., GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
City of Wilmington DE administrative policy on employee use of generative AI with disclosure, prohibited-data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Arlington TX GenAI Policy
Arlington, TX · Effective 2024-07-01 · City of Arlington TX City Manager's Office / Strategic Initiatives, Generative AI Security Policy (approved 11/18/2024)
City of Arlington TX administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure, prohibited data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Plano GenAI Policy
Plano, TX · Effective 2024-06-01 · City of Plano, Generative AI Employee Use Policy (2024)
City of Plano administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data-handling, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
Louisville Metro GenAI Policy
Louisville, KY · Effective 2024-06-01 · Louisville Metro Office of Technology, GenAI Use Policy (2024)
Louisville Metro administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with prohibited data and disclosure rules.
-
In effect
SLC GenAI Policy
Salt Lake City, UT · Effective 2024-06-01 · Salt Lake City IMS, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
Salt Lake City Information Management Services administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure and prohibited-data rules.
-
In effect
St. Louis GenAI Policy
St. Louis, MO · Effective 2024-06-01 · City of St. Louis ITSA, Guidance on Generative AI (Oct. 2023)
City of St. Louis administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools, with disclosure, data, and human-review rules.
-
In effect
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · Effective 2024-06-01 · MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
The DC Metropolitan Police Department launched its UAS program in June 2024 under General Order 803.09, prohibiting facial recognition and weaponization and barring targeting based on protected characteristics.
-
In effect
SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-05-16 · SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized under Proposition E (SF Admin Code 96I.2)
After voters passed Proposition E in March 2024, SFPD began operating drones for criminal investigations, vehicle pursuits, and critical incidents, with publicly available flight logs starting May 16, 2024.
-
In effect
Fort Worth GenAI Policy
Fort Worth, TX · Effective 2024-05-01 · City of Fort Worth, Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (approved Dec. 18, 2023)
Fort Worth administrative policy governing employee use of generative AI, with mandatory disclosure, prohibited data categories, and human review requirements.
-
In effect
San Antonio GenAI Pilot Governance
San Antonio, TX · Effective 2024-04-01 · City of San Antonio ITSD, Administrative Directive 7.4a Attachment A – Acceptable Use of Generative AI Tools (May 2024); CIO Position Statement on AI Standards for COSA (January 2024)
San Antonio Information Technology Services Department governs generative AI through two instruments: a January 2024 CIO Position Statement providing an AI risk framework and playbook for all city employees, and a May 2024 Attachment A to Administrative Directive 7.4a titled 'Acceptable Use of Generative AI Tools' covering responsible use of third-party GenAI tools. AI technologies are tested and validated before procurement via AI FactSheet, Risk Assessment, and Findings Report. The 'SmartSA' branding in the original entry is inaccurate — these are ITSD administrative instruments, not SmartSA program documents.
-
In effect
Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned
Providence, RI · Effective 2024-03-01 · Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations
The Providence Police Department issued General Order 460.01 governing its UAS operations, a formal written policy setting the rules for drone deployment by the department.
-
In effect
NYC LL 60 (delivery robots)
New York City · Effective 2024-01-01 · N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19-176.4; Local Law 60 of 2023
New York City authorized a pilot framework for sidewalk delivery robots ('motorized assistive devices'), giving DOT rulemaking authority over speed, weight, sidewalk vs. bike-lane use, and operator registration. The DOT pilot launched in 2024 with explicit weight caps (550 lb) and 12 mph maximum speed.
-
In effect
SF Generative AI Guidelines
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2023-12-11 · CCSF, Generative AI Guidelines (Dec. 2023, rev. July 2025)
San Francisco's citywide generative AI guidelines apply to employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors working for the city. They require human review and disclosure of AI-generated content, prohibit entering non-public information into AI tools, ban concealing AI use, and bar generating deepfake-style images, audio, or video. Most recently revised in July 2025.
-
In effect
Seattle Generative AI Policy
Seattle, WA · Effective 2023-11-01 · City of Seattle, GenAI Policy POL-209 (eff. Nov. 1, 2023)
Seattle's generative AI policy governs how city employees use tools like ChatGPT. It requires attribution of AI-generated work, human review of all AI output before release, and limits on feeding personal information into AI systems, built around seven principles including bias reduction, transparency, and explainability.
-
In effect
San Jose GenAI Guidelines
San Jose, CA · Effective 2023-07-25 · City of San Jose, Generative AI Guidelines (June 12, 2023)
San Jose published one of the first US city-government playbooks for generative AI, requiring staff to log every use of tools like ChatGPT, complete training, and refrain from entering confidential information.
-
In effect
Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief
Peninsula School District, WA · Effective 2023-07-15 · Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Beliefs for AI Use)
One of the first US districts to publish AI guidance, Peninsula SD (WA) sets principles requiring staff to be diligent custodians of student data, cautions against unreliable AI detection tools, and mandates transparency and human oversight in all AI use.
-
In effect
Boston GenAI Guidelines
Boston, MA · Effective 2023-05-18 · City of Boston, Interim GenAI Guidelines v1.1 (May 18, 2023)
Boston was one of the first major US cities to issue generative AI guidance for its workforce. The interim guidelines tell city employees to never put confidential or personally identifying information into AI prompts, to fact-check all AI-generated content, and to disclose AI use, while encouraging responsible experimentation.
-
In effect
Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Te
Anchorage, AK · Effective 2023-04-19 · Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Technology (AO 2023-35)
The Anchorage Assembly voted 10-1 to bar the municipality from acquiring or using facial recognition technology for surveillance, with limited exceptions requiring Assembly approval.
-
In effect
Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized
Portland, OR · Effective 2023-04-05 · Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized by City Council (Ordinance 191882)
Portland City Council authorized the Police Bureau to operate drones on April 5, 2023, expanded them citywide in September 2024, and launched a Drone as First Responder pilot in September 2025, with policy explicitly barring mass surveillance and facial recognition.
-
In effect
Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern
Chula Vista, CA · Effective 2022-11-01 · Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy governing the Real-Time Operations Center
Chula Vista's City Council adopted a privacy and technology-transparency policy and oversight commission governing how the police department's Real-Time Operations Center acquires surveillance tools and stores, shares, and profits from data such as drone and license-plate-reader feeds.
-
In effect
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera
Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · Effective 2022-08-01 · Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera Surveillance System
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 (Colorado Springs) deployed nearly 400 Verkada AI-enabled cameras with facial recognition to identify 'persons of interest,' installed before Colorado's 2022 statewide facial-recognition moratorium and allowed to continue under the grandfather provision.
-
In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing
Boston, MA · Effective 2021-10-21 · Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing
Boston bars police from acquiring, deploying, or newly repurposing surveillance technology without City Council approval and restricts sharing student information with police, complementing its earlier facial-recognition ban.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r
Minneapolis, MN · Effective 2021-02-12 · Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial recognition technology
Minneapolis' City Council voted 13-0 to bar all city agencies, including the police department, from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or data derived from it.
-
In effect
LAPD Facial Recognition Policy
Los Angeles, CA · Effective 2021-01-12 · L.A. Board of Police Commissioners facial recognition use policy (Jan. 2021)
After officers were caught using Clearview AI, the LA Police Commission adopted a policy in early 2021 restricting LAPD facial recognition to the county's official mugshot database (LACRIS) for criminal investigations. Commercial face-scraping services like Clearview AI are prohibited.
-
In effect
New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti
Lockport City School District, NY · Effective 2020-12-22 · New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halting Lockport CSD facial recognition system)
A first-in-the-nation state moratorium signed December 2020 halted the $2.7 million facial-recognition surveillance system that the Lockport City School District had activated in January 2020, pending a state privacy and demographic-accuracy review.
-
In effect
Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin
New Orleans, LA · Effective 2020-12-17 · Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance banning NOPD facial recognition and predictive policing
New Orleans' City Council banned NOPD use of facial recognition, stingrays, and predictive policing in 2020, but the council rolled back the facial recognition ban to permit limited use in 2022.
-
In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-16 · Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometric-surveillance and predictive-policing bans (amended Surveillance Transparency Ordinance)
On December 16, 2020, the Oakland City Council approved a drone use policy requiring annual reporting and, via revisions to its surveillance transparency ordinance, expanded its facial-recognition ban to other biometric surveillance and barred predictive-policing software.
-
In effect
Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS)
Oakland, CA · Effective 2020-12-15 · Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) Ordinance prohibiting predictive policing analytics
Oakland amended its Community Control of Police Surveillance ordinance to expressly prohibit city use of predictive policing analytics (and biometric surveillance) while requiring City Council approval, with resident input, for any other surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial
Madison, WI · Effective 2020-12-01 · Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial recognition technology
Madison's Common Council voted 17-2 to bar city agencies from acquiring or using facial recognition technology or facial-surveillance-derived information, with narrow exceptions for human-trafficking and missing/exploited-children cases.
-
In effect
Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use
Pittsburgh, PA · Effective 2020-09-22 · Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use of facial recognition and predictive policing technology
Pittsburgh's City Council barred the police bureau from obtaining or using facial recognition or predictive policing technology without prior City Council approval, functioning as a moratorium on new use.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci
Portland, OR · Effective 2020-09-09 · Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus
Portland's City Council unanimously banned all city bureaus, including police, from using or acquiring face recognition technology, with narrow device-unlock and redaction exceptions.
-
In effect
Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P
Portland, ME · Effective 2020-08-04 · Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the Portland Jetport and ocean port)
Portland barred city use of facial recognition after debate over the city-run Jetport and ocean port, though the ban does not reach federal CBP use required for international-flight processing.
-
In effect
NYPD POST Act
New York City, NY · Effective 2020-07-15 · NYC Local Law 65 of 2020, as amended 2025
The POST Act requires the NYPD to publicly disclose what surveillance technologies it uses and publish impact and use policies for each one. 2025 amendments added facial recognition audits, itemized technology inventories, and disclosure of outside entities that receive NYPD surveillance data.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston
Boston, MA · Effective 2020-06-24 · Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston
Boston's City Council voted unanimously to ban city government, including police, from using face surveillance technology and from asking third parties to use it on their behalf.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology
Santa Cruz became the first U.S. city to bar its police department from using predictive policing (and facial recognition) technology unless the City Council finds by resolution that it is peer-reviewed, unbiased, and protective of civil rights.
-
In effect
Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur
Springfield, MA · Effective 2020-02-24 · Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face surveillance technology
Springfield's City Council voted 11-2 to impose a five-year moratorium barring the police department and other municipal agencies from using facial surveillance technology.
-
In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2020-01-13 · Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technology
Cambridge's City Council banned all city departments, including police, from using face surveillance technology, joining a wave of Massachusetts municipal bans.
-
In effect
Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M
Madison, WI · Effective 2020-01-01 · Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; MGO 23.63)
Madison requires city agencies to notify the Mayor and Common Council and route surveillance-technology acquisitions through Council approval, plus annual public reporting on surveillance technology use.
-
In effect
Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu
Oakland, CA · Effective 2019-07-16 · Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 9.64) banning city/police face recognition
Oakland's City Council amended its surveillance ordinance to bar all city agencies, including police, from acquiring, using, or accessing facial recognition technology.
-
In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance
Somerville, as part of the CCOPS movement, unanimously banned any city department from using face-surveillance technology and barred use of face-recognition-derived data in municipal proceedings.
-
In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u
Somerville, MA · Effective 2019-06-27 · Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal use of face recognition
Somerville's City Council unanimously banned any city department or agency, including police, from using face surveillance technology, making it the first East Coast city to do so.
-
In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · Effective 2019-05-14 · San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (facial-recognition ban covering Muni/SFMTA)
San Francisco's Surveillance Technology Ordinance bans city departments including the SFMTA/Muni from using facial recognition and requires surveillance-impact reports and annual use reports for surveillance tech.
-
In effect
Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Cambridge, MA · Effective 2018-12-10 · Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Cambridge bars city departments from funding, acquiring, or using surveillance technology without express City Council approval, requiring public impact reports, a use policy, and ongoing use reporting.
-
In effect
First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio
City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · Effective 2018-12-01 · First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal)
Delta, CBP, TSA and Hartsfield-Jackson opened the first end-to-end biometric terminal in the U.S., using facial recognition for check-in, bag drop, TSA screening, boarding, and CBP arrival.
-
In effect
Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance
Yellow Springs, OH · Effective 2018-11-19 · Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance
Yellow Springs requires the police or municipal agencies to present new surveillance technology to Village Council for a public-hearing cost-benefit review and a use policy before adoption, with annual reporting.
-
In effect
Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR)
Chula Vista, CA · Effective 2018-10-01 · Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program and UAS Policy
Chula Vista PD launched the nation's first Drone as First Responder program in 2018, deploying drones to 911 calls under a policy that bars recording where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy absent a warrant or emergency.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Logan Ordinance 26-12 - Temporary Land Use Ordinance (data c
Logan · Logan Ordinance 26-12 - Temporary Land Use Ordinance (data center moratorium)
The Logan Municipal Council passed Ordinance 26-12, a temporary land use ordinance imposing a 180-day moratorium on data centers while the city drafts regulations.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Ene
Town of Clay · Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Energy Storage System Law
The Clay Town Board approved a one-year moratorium halting applications for large-scale data centers, AI computing facilities, and cryptocurrency operations while the town develops regulations, alongside a new Battery Energy Storage System Law.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
City of Lynn Haven one-year AI data center moratorium
City of Lynn Haven · City of Lynn Haven one-year AI data center moratorium
The Lynn Haven City Commission enacted a one-year moratorium prohibiting city staff from accepting, processing, or approving any AI data center or data center development proposals.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Sherman Township 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers
Sherman Township, Huron County, Michigan · Sherman Township 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers
Sherman Township approved a 12-month moratorium halting acceptance and approval of new data center development.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Somerville 18-Month Data Center Moratorium
Somerville, Tennessee · Somerville 18-Month Data Center Moratorium
The Somerville Town Council approved an 18-month pause on data centers amid a dispute over a proposed bitcoin mining facility.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Lewisville Data Center Special-Use Permit Ordinance
Lewisville, Texas · Lewisville Data Center Special-Use Permit Ordinance
Lewisville unanimously approved an ordinance requiring AI data centers to obtain a special-use permit and prohibiting them in residential areas.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Westfield One-Year Data Center Moratorium
Westfield, Massachusetts · Westfield One-Year Data Center Moratorium
The Westfield City Council made the moratorium official on July 6, 2026 with a unanimous second-reading vote, imposing a 12-month (365-day) ban on new data centers while it studies zoning and health impacts.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Solon Township six-month moratorium on data center proposals
Solon Township (Kent County) · Solon Township six-month moratorium on data center proposals
The Solon Township Board unanimously enacted a six-month moratorium barring the township from accepting any data center proposals while it drafts a zoning ordinance regulating data centers' noise, water use, and power usage.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Berlin Township Data Center Ordinance
Berlin Township, Wayne County · Berlin Township Data Center Ordinance
Berlin Township in Wayne County, PA passed a data center ordinance setting mitigation limits on noise, water depletion, diesel backup generators, heat, light, and radiation for data center development.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
One-year moratorium on new data centers
Burien · One-year moratorium on new data centers
The Burien, WA City Council unanimously enacted an immediate one-year moratorium on new data centers to give staff time to study impacts and draft regulations.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
180-Day Curative Amendment Moratorium on Data Center Zoning
Hazle Township, Luzerne County · 180-Day Curative Amendment Moratorium on Data Center Zoning
Hazle Township supervisors unanimously enacted a 180-day curative amendment imposing a moratorium while officials draft new zoning rules specifically regulating data centers and data center accessory uses.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development
Asheville · One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development
The Asheville City Council unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new data center development so staff can define data centers in the city's development ordinance and create zoning rules.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development
Brookville Borough · 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development
Brookville Borough Council (Jefferson County) unanimously passed a 180-day moratorium on data center development, pausing projects into December while the borough drafts regulations, largely over water-supply concerns.
-
Proposed / pending
SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance
Indianapolis / Marion County · SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance
The Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-3 to advance to the City-County Council a proposed SU-47 special-use zoning ordinance setting minimum standards for future data centers, including public hearings, noise limits, setbacks, and water-management and operations plans.
-
Proposed / pending
Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price-
Bellingham · Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price-Fixing
A certified citizen initiative would prohibit landlords from using algorithmic coordinating services to set rental prices, heading toward Bellingham's November 2026 ballot.
-
In effect
Peru IN temporary data center moratorium (2026)
Peru, IN · City of Peru, Ind. — Planning Commission action (date not specified in coverage, reported 2026-07-03)
The City of Peru put a temporary hold on new data centers within city limits while it works out a permanent ordinance, which it plans to model on neighboring Miami County's approach. City Council President Tim Fischer described it as a placeholder: 'until we can get an ordinance in place where we can have some rules and guidelines for bringing data centers into the city limits.'
-
In effect
NYC AI Action Plan
New York City, NY · NYC OTI, AI Action Plan (Oct. 2023)
NYC's AI Action Plan is the city's roadmap for responsible government AI use, with 37 action items covering AI principles, agency guidance, procurement standards, risk assessment, and public engagement. It is policy guidance from the mayor's Office of Technology and Innovation rather than binding law; annual progress reports have followed.
-
In effect
San José AI Policy
San Jose, CA · City of San José Policy Manual § 1.7.12; GenAI Guidelines (2023, as updated)
San José adopted a citywide AI policy and generative AI guidelines governing how city staff use AI tools. Employees must register AI uses with the city's Privacy and AI team, may not let AI make actionable decisions about residents (like approving applications), and must review AI outputs. San José also founded the GovAI Coalition, whose AI policy templates have been adopted by 100+ public agencies.
-
In effect
Long Beach GenAI Guidance
Long Beach, CA · City of Long Beach, GenAI Guidance v1.3; AI Strategy (2025)
Long Beach's Smart City program issued Generative AI Guidance (now v1.3) for city staff, covering AI bias, data privacy, and cybersecurity, and in 2025 published a citywide AI Strategy committing to an AI use-case registry, workforce training, and community engagement. It builds on the city's council-approved 2021 Data Privacy Guidelines.
-
In effect
Pittsburgh GenAI Use Policy
Pittsburgh, PA · City of Pittsburgh internal GenAI policy (2023, updated 2024)
Pittsburgh adopted an internal policy on generative AI use by city staff, informed by the University of Pittsburgh's Task Force on Public Algorithms. It bars staff from entering private city data into tools like ChatGPT, prohibits AI use in applications that affect residents' rights or safety, forbids relying on generative AI for decisions, and requires AI use to be disclosed and logged.
-
In effect
New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules
New Orleans, LA · New Orleans, La., Code ch. 147, as amended July 21, 2022
New Orleans banned facial recognition, predictive policing, and cell-site simulators in December 2020, but the council partially repealed the ban in July 2022, letting police use facial recognition (with human review and reporting) for serious violent crimes. In 2025 it emerged NOPD had received real-time facial recognition alerts from a private camera network in violation of these rules; alerts were paused in April 2025 and a proposal to authorize real-time FR was withdrawn, leaving the 2022 rules in place.
-
Proposed / pending
Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance
Minneapolis, MN · Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance
Minneapolis (third US city, 11-2 vote in March 2025) prohibits owners from using 'algorithmic devices' relying on non-public competitor data to set rents or occupancy, enforced through rental-license self-attestation and a tenant private right of action, effective March 1, 2026.
-
Expired
Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety A
Oak Park, IL · Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Oak Park Village Board voted 4-3 on August 5, 2025 to cancel its Flock contract and deactivate eight ALPR cameras, citing privacy concerns and misuse of data for immigration enforcement in violation of state law and the village's sanctuary ordinance.
-
Expired
Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety
Santa Cruz, CA · Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 to terminate its Flock contract with 30 days' notice after reports that plate data had been searched by out-of-state agencies on behalf of federal law enforcement including ICE in violation of state law.
-
Expired
Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety
Flagstaff, AZ · Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety ALPR program
The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously on December 16, 2025 to terminate its Flock contract and immediately deactivate all 32 cameras, citing privacy, cybersecurity, public-records, and data-sharing concerns.
-
Expired
Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered
Eugene, OR · Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered pause
After the City Council voted 8-0 in October 2025 to pause the cameras over federal-misuse fears, Eugene Police ended the Flock contract on December 5, 2025 citing data-security and community-expectation concerns.
-
Expired
Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a
Denver, CO · Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor amid data-sharing concerns
After Denver ended its Flock contract over privacy and federal data-sharing concerns, the City Council voted on March 31, 2026 to approve a smaller replacement ALPR contract with Axon, with several members demanding an ALPR-regulating ordinance first.
-
Expired
Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR ca
Hillsborough, NC · Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR cameras
Town leaders in Hillsborough, North Carolina ended the town's relationship with Flock Safety in October 2025 amid the wave of local governments dropping ALPR contracts over surveillance and immigration data-sharing concerns.
-
Proposed / pending
Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic li
New York City Public Schools, NY · Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic light' framework)
NYC Public Schools issued preliminary AI guidance using a green/yellow/red 'traffic light' framework that permits some staff and student uses, requires human review for others, and prohibits AI in grading, discipline, IEPs and placement decisions, with a fuller playbook to follow.
-
Proposed / pending
City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase
Missoula, MT · City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase pending a surveillance policy
The Missoula City Council delayed a $366,390 park security camera upgrade contract over resident concerns about AI features like facial recognition, directing the administration to draft a surveillance policy before any purchase.
-
Proposed / pending
91-day pause on data center development
Sanford, ME · 91-day pause on data center development
The Sanford City Council voted to institute a 91-day pause on data center development, stalling a proposed 1,000-acre project and creating a task force to recommend municipal regulations.
-
Proposed / pending
Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight
New York City · NYC Int 0919-2026
Would establish an Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight within the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. The office would investigate complaints about AI systems violating consumer protection laws, recommend enforcement actions, maintain a public complaint portal, run AI-harm consumer awareness campaigns, and propose rules clarifying how existing consumer protections apply to AI.
-
Proposed / pending
AI Gendered Impact Assessment + Interagency Taskforce
New York City · NYC Int 0287-2026
Requires the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications to conduct biennial assessments of whether algorithmic tools using gender data may create disparate impacts. Establishes an interagency task force meeting at least twice yearly to evaluate how AI affects city employees' employment outcomes by gender (job displacement, role changes). Task force draws from administrative services, worker protection, human rights, technology, and gender equity agencies.
-
Status unknown
NYC resolution urging NY State to pass Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356)
New York City · NYC Res 0175-2026
Resolution urging the NY State Legislature to enact, and Governor Hochul to sign, the Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356) — which would establish state oversight through the Department of State, require licensing for high-risk AI systems, and ban particularly dangerous applications like autonomous weapons.
-
Proposed / pending
Nashville/Davidson County temporary moratorium on data centers
Nashville-Davidson County · Metro Nashville/Davidson data-center moratorium ordinance (first reading June 10, 2026)
Temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, approval and issuance of zoning, building or grading permits for data centers across Davidson County. Cites high electrical demand, backup generators, fuel storage, battery systems, substations, cooling, noise, lighting, stormwater, security fencing, and 24-hour operations. Two companion zoning bills (also introduced June 2) would define data centers in Metro code, create size-and-power categories, and set siting conditions.
-
Proposed / pending
Fayetteville data-center ordinance (public hearing Aug 10, 2026)
Fayetteville, North Carolina · Fayetteville (NC) proposed data-center ordinance (active deliberation June 8, 2026)
Proposed data center ordinance for Fayetteville. After an initial April 27 vote to delay 120 days, council voted 8-2 on June 8 to revive the draft and schedule a public hearing for August 10, 2026. The ordinance would set rules for data center siting and operation within Fayetteville city limits (Cumberland County's moratorium applies only to unincorporated areas).
-
Status unknown
Atlanta City Council resolution accepting AI Commission recommendations
Atlanta · Atlanta 26-R-3663 (introduced June 1, 2026)
Resolution accepting the final report and 16 recommendations of the Atlanta AI Commission. Recommendations include equity impact assessments in AI procurement, role-specific staff training, cybersecurity standards for AI vendors, a public registry of all AI systems in use across City departments, and creation of a permanent AI Advisory Board co-chaired by the City's Chief Information Officer and Senior Technology Advisor. Directs the Mayor's office to examine administrative implementation steps while Council considers legislative follow-up.
-
Proposed / pending
NYC Int 1196-2025
New York, NY · NYC Int 1196-2025
NYC Int 1196-2025 proposes to amend the administrative code of the City of New York to prohibit the unauthorized depiction of public officials by artificial intelligence; it is not about additional requirements on city agencies' use of AI tools.
-
Proposed / pending
Providence CPRA Amendments
Providence, RI · Providence CPRA amendments (introduced Oct. 6, 2025)
Providence Council Committee advanced amendments to the Community-Police Relations Act that would bar RTCC/ALPR use to assist federal immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant, prohibit demographic data collection via city surveillance, and require written agreements with data-accessing partner agencies.
-
Proposed / pending
Hartford Surveillance Oversight (proposed)
Hartford, CT · Hartford proposed surveillance oversight ordinance (2024)
Hartford's proposed surveillance-oversight ordinance would ban weaponization of police drones, require HPD public reporting on drone use, and require Council approval of all future police surveillance technology acquisitions.
-
Proposed / pending
Chicago City AI Ordinance (stalled)
Chicago, IL · Chicago, Ill., Ordinance O2024-0008864 (pending in committee)
A pending Chicago ordinance would set citywide guidelines for how city government adopts AI tools in areas like traffic analysis, public safety, and waste management, create a pilot program, and require semi-annual public reports on the city's AI use. It has sat in committee since April 2024 without a vote.
-
Proposed / pending
NYC AI Oversight Office Bill
New York City, NY · N.Y.C. Council Int. No. 0919-2026 (pending)
A pending New York City Council bill would write an office of artificial intelligence oversight into the City Charter and Administrative Code, building on the city's 2025 GUARD Act package on algorithmic accountability for city agencies. Awaiting committee action.