AI disclosure and transparency laws by state

AI Laws USA tracks 402 U.S. AI rules on AI disclosure and transparency across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.

Federal AI disclosure and transparency rules (73)

In effect
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)

United States · Effective June 23, 2025 · 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. Part 312

COPPA requires online services aimed at children under 13 to get verifiable parental consent before collecting kids' personal data. The 2025 rule update — fully in effect since April 22, 2026 — adds biometric identifiers (like face templates and voiceprints, which matter for AI tools), requires separate parental consent before sharing children's data for targeted advertising, and tightens data retention limits.

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

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

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

Full entry · Court record
In effect
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)

D.C. Cir. · Effective March 18, 2025 · Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)

The companion copyright case: Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright with 'Creativity Machine' (his AI) as the author. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in March 2025 that the Copyright Act's human-authorship requirement is dispositive as a matter of statutory law. AI cannot be a copyright author under U.S. law.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
Thaler v. Vidal (DABUS)

Fed. Cir. · Effective August 5, 2022 · Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1783 (2023)

Stephen Thaler, inventor of the 'DABUS' AI system, sought to list DABUS as the inventor on two patent applications. The Federal Circuit ruled in August 2022 that under the Patent Act 'inventor' must be a natural person. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2023, settling U.S. law: AI systems cannot be inventors of record.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
ECOA / Regulation B (AI credit discrimination)

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Title VII / ADA (AI hiring)

United States · Effective July 2, 1965 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

Federal anti-discrimination law applies when employers use AI tools to screen resumes, score interviews, or rank candidates: if an AI tool disproportionately screens out people by race, sex, disability, or other protected traits, the employer can be liable. The EEOC's specific AI guidance documents from 2023 were removed in January 2025, but the underlying laws are unchanged and still enforceable.

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Hachette v. Google (Gemini AI copyright)

United States · Effective July 10, 2026 · Hachette Book Group Inc. et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05870 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2026)

Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, and author Scott Turow filed a copyright class action against Google in the Southern District of New York on July 10, 2026 (No. 1:26-cv-05870), alleging Google used millions of copyrighted books and academic journal articles without authorization to train its Gemini AI models. The complaint alleges Google misused works supplied for Google Books 'snippet' access to copy full texts for AI training, also sourcing material from pirate websites. An internal Google document cited in the complaint estimates potential copyright exposure of $10 billion to $100 billion. The case is distinct from (and does not overlap with) the existing NYT v. OpenAI and Authors Guild v. OpenAI suits.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
FTC v. DoNotPay

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FTC v. IntelliVision

FTC · Effective January 13, 2025 · In re IntelliVision Techs. Corp., FTC No. C-4813 (Dec. 19, 2024)

The FTC settled with IntelliVision in December 2024, alleging the company falsely claimed its facial-recognition product had 'zero gender or racial bias' without testing-data to support that — and that its accuracy claims were unsubstantiated. Builds on the FTC's Rite Aid theory.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
NetChoice v. Bonta (SB 976)

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

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

Full entry · Court record
In effect
FTC v. Evolv

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FDA PCCP Guidance (AI/ML devices)

United States · Effective December 4, 2024 · FDA Guidance (Dec. 4, 2024); 21 U.S.C. § 360e-4

FDA finalized a framework that lets manufacturers update an AI-enabled medical device after clearance without filing a new submission for each change — but only if they pre-specify what changes are allowed, how they'll be validated, and how transparency to clinicians and patients will be preserved.

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
CCIA v. Paxton (TX SCOPE)

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
OFCCP AI Selection Guidance

United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · OFCCP AI EEO Guidance (Apr. 29, 2024)

Federal contractors using AI in hiring must comply with OFCCP nondiscrimination requirements: vendor due diligence, recordkeeping, validation under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and accommodations for applicants with disabilities. OFCCP makes clear contractors cannot outsource liability to AI vendors.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
SEC AI-washing settlement

United States · Effective March 18, 2024 · In re Delphia (USA) Inc., Securities Act Rel. No. 11264 (Mar. 18, 2024); In re Global Predictions Inc., Securities Act Rel. No. 11265 (Mar. 18, 2024)

The SEC charged two investment advisers — Delphia (USA) and Global Predictions — with making false and misleading statements about using AI and machine learning. The firms paid $400,000 combined in civil penalties. It was the SEC's first 'AI-washing' enforcement action and signals scrutiny of overstated AI capability claims in financial services.

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

S.D.N.Y. · Effective December 27, 2023 · The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.)

The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging the companies copied millions of Times articles to train GPT models and that ChatGPT regurgitates Times content verbatim. The case is the most consequential of the news-publisher AI training-data suits and is in discovery; in March 2025 Judge Sidney Stein largely denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss, allowing the direct, contributory, and DMCA claims to proceed. On July 9, 2026, the NYT and Daily News filed a motion to sanction OpenAI, alleging OpenAI concealed evidence. On August 6, 2026, Judge Stein denied the NYT's motion to amend its complaint to add Microsoft-specific contributory infringement claims, ruling the motion was untimely given the US Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling raising the bar for platform liability.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
Drone Remote ID Rule

United States · Effective September 16, 2023 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CFPB § 1071 Rule (small-biz AI lending)

United States · Effective August 29, 2023 · 12 C.F.R. Part 1002 Subpart B; 88 Fed. Reg. 35150

Lenders covered by the rule must collect and report demographic and transactional data on small-business credit applications — including data needed to detect algorithmic discrimination by AI underwriting models.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Mata v. Avianca (ChatGPT fake cites)

S.D.N.Y. · Effective June 22, 2023 · Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Two New York attorneys submitted a brief containing six fictitious case citations generated by ChatGPT. In June 2023 Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned them $5,000 each — the first formal federal sanction for AI-hallucinated legal citations, and the most-cited case in subsequent bar opinions on attorney AI use.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
DoD Directive 3000.09 (LAWS)

United States · Effective January 25, 2023 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NHTSA SGO 2021-01 (AV/ADAS reporting)

United States · Effective June 29, 2021 · NHTSA SGO 2021-01

Manufacturers and operators of vehicles equipped with SAE Level 2 driver-assistance (Tesla Autopilot, GM Super Cruise) or Level 3-5 automated driving systems must report crashes to NHTSA on a strict timeline — within one day for serious crashes. The data drives recall actions including Tesla's Dec. 2023 over-the-air Autopilot recall.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Robles v. Domino's

9th Cir. · Effective October 7, 2019 · Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122

While predating modern generative AI, the Ninth Circuit's 2019 Robles v. Domino's ruling — followed by Supreme Court cert. denial — established that ADA Title III applies to web and mobile apps that interact with brick-and-mortar services. The decision is now the doctrinal anchor for AI chatbot and voice-assistant accessibility claims.

Full entry · Court record
In effect
Trump AI Innovation & Security EO (June 2026)

United States · Effective June 2, 2026 · E.O. (June 2, 2026) — Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

President Trump signed an executive order on June 2, 2026, directing frontier AI developers to voluntarily share new models with the federal government 30 days before public release for national-security review. The order also directs CISA to build an AI cybersecurity framework and tasks DOJ with prioritizing criminal enforcement of AI-enabled fraud. No binding requirements apply to private AI developers — the framework is voluntary.

Full entry · Agency page
Proposed / pending
NAIC AI Evaluation Tool Pilot (12 states, 2026)

United States · Effective March 2, 2026 · NAIC Big Data and AI (H) Working Group — AI Systems Evaluation Tool Pilot (launched March 2, 2026)

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners launched a 12-state pilot program in March 2026 to test a new 'AI Systems Evaluation Tool' — a standardized framework giving insurance examiners a structured method to assess how insurance companies govern their AI systems during market conduct and financial examinations. The 12 participating states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The tool requires insurers to complete four exhibits: one quantifying AI usage, one assessing governance risk, one detailing high-risk AI systems, and one documenting AI data practices. The pilot runs through September 2026, with tool updates through October 2026 and formal NAIC adoption expected at the Fall National Meeting in November 2026.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
EPA AI Strategic Plan

United States · Effective October 30, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Federal AI Executive Orders

United States · Effective January 23, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
43 more
OMB M-24-18 (superseded by M-25-22) · United States · Repealed / replaced
GSA AI Procurement Guide · United States · In effect
Battle v. Microsoft · D. Md. · Repealed / replaced
NTIA Open Weights Report · United States · In effect
NIST GenAI Profile (AI 600-1) · United States · In effect
FINRA AI Notice 24-09 · United States · In effect
NTIA AI Accountability Report · United States · In effect
NIST AISI / AISIC · United States · In effect
CFTC AI trading-scam advisory · United States · In effect
NSF NAIRR Pilot · United States · In effect
NAIC AI Model Bulletin (Insurance) · United States · In effect
ED AI in Education Report · United States · In effect
FDA AI Drug/Bio Guidance · United States · In effect
NIST AI RMF (voluntary AI risk framework) · United States · In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat · United States · In effect
FY23 NDAA §7224B (civilian AI inventory) · United States · In effect
OSTP AI Bill of Rights Blueprint · United States · In effect
Interagency AI/ML Risk Mgmt (OCC/Fed/FDIC) · United States · In effect
AI in Government Act (2020) · United States · In effect
FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform · United States · Enacted (not yet in effect)
FTC Proposed Policy Statement — AI Accuracy (July 2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
S.Res. 896 religious freedom and AI transparency · United States · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Copyright Office AI Guidance · United States · In effect
Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691) · United States · Proposed / pending
FTC CARS Rule (AI auto) · United States · Proposed / pending
FCC AI robocall disclosure NPRM · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 9917 AI Kill Switch Act · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10417 VA AI Transparency Act · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10502 AI use under FISA 702 report · United States · Proposed / pending
US H.R. 10146 AI Advertising Disclosure Act (sponsored content in AI tools) · United States · Proposed / pending
US S. 5471 AI Systems Transparency Act · United States · Proposed / pending
QUIET Act · United States · Proposed / pending
QUIET Act (Senate) · United States · Proposed / pending
FTC v. Rytr · FTC · Repealed / replaced
EO 14110 (revoked) · United States · Repealed / replaced
EO 13960 (federal AI use) · United States · Repealed / replaced
EO 13859 (American AI Initiative) · United States · Repealed / replaced
Algorithmic Accountability Act (2019, died) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Accountability Act (2022, died) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Accountability Act (2023, died) · United States · Expired
Bot Disclosure Act (Feinstein, died) · United States · Expired
Algorithmic Justice Act (Markey/Matsui, died) · United States · Expired
OBBBA §43201 (stripped) · United States · Expired

State AI disclosure and transparency rules (194)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)

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

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

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 2469 data center water disclosure before permits (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. AB 2469 (2026), Ch. 436, Stats. 2026 (Gov. Code § 65964.7)

AB 2469 bars any California city or county — including charter cities — from approving a permit that would allow a data center to be built, or expanded in a way that raises its peak water use, unless the developer first provides a water supply assessment, projected water use and efficiency measures, workforce disclosures, and (starting in 2028) a drought 'water scarcity plan'. The developer must also pay the full cost of any water infrastructure needed to serve the project. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026. A law-firm alert says the package primarily takes effect January 1, 2027.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Texas TWDB data center water reporting penalties (2026)

Texas · Effective September 14, 2026 · Tex. Governor's Directive to the Tex. Water Dev. Bd. (Sept. 14, 2026)

Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Water Development Board on September 14, 2026 to penalize data centers that do not report their water usage. The reason is a compliance failure rather than a policy gap: over the past three years, as few as 28% of data centers responded to the state's mandated water usage survey. A reporting requirement that three-quarters of its subjects ignore is not a reporting requirement, and this directive supplies the consequences that were missing. Non-compliance can carry criminal consequences and can make a data center ineligible for water permits, amendments or renewals under Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code. Abbott instructed the Board to refer violations to the appropriate county or district attorney, and to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality about potential permit disqualification. He also directed the Board to coordinate with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the state's water utilities and ERCOT on the separate data center audit he ordered in August — which requires projects moving through ERCOT's interconnection queue to verify their water consumption, water sources and cooling technologies before proceeding, with non-compliant projects denied a grid connection. The Board must report back on enforcement by October 14, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Massachusetts EO 658 responsible data center development (2026)

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Pennsylvania EO 2026-05 data center restrictions (2026)

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CA CPPA ADMT Regs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Tohono O'odham Research Code

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Fair Price Protection Act, P.L.2026, c.55 (2026)

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

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

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
AI Safety Measures Act (frontier model audits)

Illinois · Effective January 1, 2027 · 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.

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

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

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

Full entry · Legal analysis
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oklahoma SB 259 Groundwater Modernization Act (2026)

Oklahoma · Effective November 1, 2026 · Okla. S.B. 259 (2026) (Groundwater Modernization Act) (eff. Nov. 1, 2026)

Oklahoma's Groundwater Modernization Act, Senate Bill 259, was signed on August 6, 2026 and takes effect November 1, 2026. It requires water permit holders to file annual water-use reports with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and directs the Board to write rules for reviewing those reports, investigating complaints of waste, and imposing penalties for overuse. The structure matters: reporting alone produces data nobody acts on, so the Act pairs the disclosure duty with an investigation power and a penalty power in the same statute. It was signed as half of a package with House Bill 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act — legislators presented the two together as addressing the two resources data centers strain hardest. The Act is not limited to data centers; it reaches all water permit holders, which makes it broader in application than most 2026 data-center-driven measures while still being the instrument Oklahoma chose to answer data center water use.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Utah EO 2026-08 pro-human AI in state government

Utah · Effective October 6, 2026 · Utah Exec. Order No. 2026-08 (Oct. 6, 2026)

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed an executive order on Oct. 6, 2026 setting rules for how executive-branch agencies use artificial intelligence. Agencies must avoid AI tools that do not follow the state's 'pro-human' principles, document how AI systems and their inputs and outputs figure in decisions that affect the public, and have staff complete AI literacy training. The Department of Government Operations must keep human-in-the-loop review for determinations affecting individual rights when helping agencies deploy AI.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
MD HB 1339 (Automated Decision Systems, 2026)

Maryland · Effective October 1, 2026 · Md. HB 1339 (2026 Reg. Sess.)

Maryland employers that use automated decision systems in hiring, promotion, or termination decisions must disclose to applicants and employees that an automated system is being used. Employers must also conduct and retain impact assessments evaluating whether their ADS produces disparate outcomes by race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Penalties run up to $10,000 per violation. Takes effect October 1, 2026.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Texas AG data center water-reporting investigation (2026)

Texas · Effective September 24, 2026 · Texas OAG press release (Sept. 24, 2026)

On September 24, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that his office is investigating data center developments in Texas that have not answered the Texas Water Development Board's water use survey. State law requires the Board to survey entities that use groundwater or surface water for municipal, industrial, power generation or mining purposes. Paxton is demanding that every data center in Texas submit a survey response that fully complies with the law. The first round of the investigation covers data centers in 18 counties, including Harris, Dallas, Travis, Bexar and El Paso.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Maryland EO 01.01.2026.16 data center framework (2026)

Maryland · Effective September 23, 2026 · Md. Exec. Order 01.01.2026.16 (Sept. 23, 2026)

Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed an executive order on September 23, 2026 that sets one statewide review process for large data centers, meaning those with 25 megawatts or more of peak electric demand. A new Maryland Data Center Accountability Task Force will judge each project on five principles: ratepayer and grid protection, economic benefit, community voice, environmental protection, and transparency. Each project gets a public rating of Aligned, Conditionally Aligned or Not Aligned. For projects rated Not Aligned, or that never ask for a rating, state agencies will not offer letters of support, advocacy or incentives, and will hold off on substantive permit review until local land-use approvals are in place. The order also bars executive agencies from signing non-disclosure agreements with data center developers, and creates a public Data Center Dashboard updated monthly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026)

Virginia · Effective July 1, 2026 · Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5 (2026), enacted by HB 153 and SB 94, effective July 1, 2026

Virginia now has a statewide law governing where the largest data centers may go and what their developers must disclose before a local board votes. It took effect July 1, 2026 as Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5, enacted through identical companion bills HB 153 and SB 94. What it does is narrower than the debate around it suggests, and the distinction matters. The law REQUIRES STUDIES. It forces a developer to study NOISE, and it forces the utility to disclose SUBSTATIONS, before the local vote happens. It does NOT set a noise limit. It does NOT set a water cap. It does NOT set a setback. In the Roanoke Rambler's framing, understanding that difference is what separates holding a project accountable from misreading what local officials are actually empowered to do. This is a DISCLOSURE-AND-PROCESS statute, not a substantive-standards statute — it changes what a board must know before it votes, not what it may approve. That is a real but bounded protection, and it sits directly on a gap this dataset records again and again: local decibel ordinances that specify a dBA figure with no measurement methodology behind it. A mandatory noise study supplies the evidence that such limits presuppose, which is worth something even where no limit exists. The political history is the other reason to record this. Both patrons represent Prince William County, the heart of Northern Virginia's data center buildout, where fights over noise, substations and water produced the legislation. A BROADER version passed in 2025 — HB 1601 and SB 1449 — and Gov. Glenn Youngkin declined to sign it, returned it with amendments, and vetoed it on May 2, 2025, citing concerns about reduced local autonomy. Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the 2026 version, which her office lists among the new laws taking effect July 1 and describes as bipartisan. More than 60 data center bills were introduced in Virginia in 2026; about 15 passed, many as identical House and Senate pairs.

Full entry · News report
In effect
PR Ley 116-2026 (AI Bot Disclosure in Gov. Services)

Puerto Rico · Effective June 18, 2026 · 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.

Full entry · News report
In effect
FL Rule 2.515 amendment — AI citation certification (eff. Jun. 15, 2026)

Florida · Effective June 15, 2026 · 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.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
PR Ley 105-2026 (AI Elections)

Puerto Rico · Effective June 10, 2026 · Ley Núm. 105-2026 (P. del S. 101)

Puerto Rico's Law 105-2026 amends the Electoral Code to require clear disclosure on any political ad created or materially modified by AI — text, image, audio, or video. Signed by Governor Jenniffer González on June 10, 2026. First standalone AI law on the books in PR.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Utah HB 76 data center water transparency (2026)

Utah · Effective March 23, 2026 · Utah H.B. 76 (2026 Gen. Sess.) (Data Center Water Transparency Amendments)

Utah's Data Center Water Transparency Amendments, House Bill 76, were signed on March 23, 2026. The law works at two moments. Before construction, a large data center must submit its projected water use along with plans for discharge, treatment and water reuse — so the question is answered while the project can still be changed, not after it is built. Then, once operating, any data center withdrawing 75 acre-feet of water or more a year must report annually on its water use and conservation efforts, including where the water comes from, what it is used for, and water quality. A facility counts as a large data center if it is at least 10,000 square feet, uses network servers, and withdraws 75 acre-feet annually. The results go online. Individual figures are anonymised, but totals are aggregated and released publicly — a compromise that gives the public a real number for the state's data center water draw while withholding facility-level detail. Utah's law is traceable to a specific piece of research: a paper on data center water consumption is credited with prompting the legislation.

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

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

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

Full entry · Bill text
Blocked / in litigation
X.AI v. Bonta (AB 2013 training-data disclosure)

California · Effective December 29, 2025 · X.AI LLC v. Bonta, No. 2:25-cv-12295 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 29, 2025), appeal pending, No. 26-1591 (9th Cir.); oral argument July 16, 2026

X.AI LLC (Elon Musk's AI company) sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta to strike down AB 2013, California's law requiring developers of generative AI systems to publicly disclose documentation about the data used to train them. The suit was filed December 29, 2025 in the Central District of California, arguing the disclosure mandate violates the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Bernal denied X.AI's request for a preliminary injunction on March 4, 2026, and X.AI appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is pending. AB 2013 took effect January 1, 2026 and remains enforceable while the appeal proceeds. The Attorney General defends the law as a regulation of commercial speech.

Full entry · Court record
164 more
Cherokee Nation AI Policy · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
Kiowa Tribe data sovereignty resolution (KL-CY-2025-005) · Kiowa Tribe (OK) · In effect
NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
NCAI Res. SAC-22-026 (Emerging Tech) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
MN drone-warrant law (2020) · Minnesota · In effect
IL AI Video Interview Act (2019, first-in-nation) · IL · In effect
NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
Plateau Peoples TK/BC Labels · Plateau Peoples' Web Portal (Multi-Tribal) · In effect
Navajo Nation Privacy Act · Navajo Nation · In effect
Navajo NNHRRB · Navajo Nation · In effect
PA HB 1924 data center water/energy reporting (signed July 12, 2026) · PA · Enacted (not yet in effect)
AZ Ct. App. — AI fake citations sanctionable regardless of intent · Arizona · In effect
Florida State Board of Education AI rules, K-12 and state colleges (2026) · Florida · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Hawaii AI Companion Safety Act (Act 248) · Hawaii · Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 540 (GA Chatbot Safety) · Georgia · Enacted (not yet in effect)
HB 1170 (WA AI Content Disclosure) · Washington · Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026) · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Utah HB 276 Provenance Act (AI-content labels + platform provenance duties) · Utah · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Utah SB 319 (insurers must disclose AI use in prior authorization) · Utah · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Wisconsin 452.136(1m) (real estate ads must disclose AI-altered property images) · Wisconsin · Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 26-189 (Colorado ADMT Law) · Colorado · Enacted (not yet in effect)
RAISE Act · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
HB 2225 (WA Chatbot Safety) · Washington · Enacted (not yet in effect)
CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act) · Connecticut · In effect
IL EO 2026-07 AI Cabinet (2026) · Illinois · In effect
California EO N-9-26 — accelerated AI oversight and kill-switch study · California · In effect
SB 942 (AI Transparency Act) · California · In effect
PR Ley 140-2026 (Gov AI Cybersecurity Training) · Puerto Rico · In effect
Virginia IVO AI Safety Study (SB 384/HB 797, 2026) · Virginia · In effect
Virginia HB 496 data center water-use reporting (2026) · Virginia · In effect
CT SB 1295 (AI training-data disclosure) · Connecticut · In effect
Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decis · Colorado · Proposed / pending
New York S8420A (ads must disclose AI 'synthetic performers') · New York · In effect
Virginia VITA EA400 AI Utilization Policy (Executive Branch AI deployment standard, 2026) · Virginia · In effect
Maryland HB 1563 (AI-denial reporting) · Maryland · In effect
Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-20 · Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · In effect
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Ord · Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies) · In effect
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement · California · In effect
GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy · Maine · In effect
Vermont Election Deepfake Law · Vermont · In effect
AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Go · Texas · In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH (Data Center Task Force) · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation · Utah · In effect
Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration o · Missouri · In effect
NV AI Election Ad Disclosure · Nevada · In effect
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited) · California · In effect
California SB 361 (data brokers must report sharing data with GenAI developers) · California · In effect
AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency) · California · In effect
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety) · California · In effect
TRAIGA · Texas · In effect
Guam P.L. 38-77 (AI Task Force) · Guam · In effect
AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter · Pennsylvania · In effect
2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory · Connecticut · In effect
Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence · Mississippi · In effect
AI Companion Safeguards Law · New York · In effect
Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: · Kentucky · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy · Louisiana · In effect
Maine AI Chatbot Disclosure Law · Maine · In effect
Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging · Idaho · In effect
Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Int · North Carolina · In effect
Texas HB 3512 government AI training mandate (2025) · Texas · In effect
TX Government AI Governance (Subchapter S / SB 1964) · Texas · In effect
TX SB 1188 (AI in Health Records) · Texas · In effect
Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spre · Illinois · In effect
Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Compa · Tennessee · In effect
Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as St · Iowa · In effect
Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character. · Texas · In effect
Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an · Michigan · In effect
ND HB 1167 (political ads using AI to impersonate must say so) · North Dakota · In effect
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, an · Idaho · In effect
Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artif · Virginia · In effect
SD Election Deepfake Law · South Dakota · In effect
Minnesota SF 4097 (social-media algorithm disclosure) · Minnesota · In effect
Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001) · Georgia · In effect
New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance · Alaska · In effect
State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Ve · New Mexico · In effect
Walters v. OpenAI · GA · In effect
Utah S.B. 226 (must disclose you're talking to AI on request; AI use no excuse) · Utah · In effect
Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off) · Utah · In effect
HB 452 (Mental Health Chatbots) · Utah · In effect
The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation · Maryland · In effect
Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence · University System of Georgia (USG) · In effect
Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial I · Illinois · In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE P · Iowa · In effect
Kentucky SB 4 (AI Governance) · Kentucky · In effect
UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Gener · University of Tennessee System · In effect
Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190) · Oregon · In effect
Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analyt · Arkansas · In effect
Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2) · Alabama · In effect
Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Cust · Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power) · In effect
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o · California · In effect
Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboratio · Mississippi · In effect
IL Bar AI Standing Committee · IL · In effect
California AB 2905 (robocalls must disclose an AI-generated voice) · California · In effect
California AB 3030 (GenAI patient messages must carry an AI disclaimer) · California · In effect
California SB 896 (state AI risk analysis + AI disclaimers on gov communications) · California · In effect
California AB 2355 (AI-generated political ads must disclose the AI use) · California · In effect
Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc · Texas A&M University System · In effect
Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Inte · Nevada · In effect
Alabama Election Deepfake Law · Alabama · In effect
North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificia · North Carolina · In effect
Delaware AI Commission Act (government AI inventory) · Delaware · In effect
HB 919 (AI Political Ad Disclaimers) · Florida · In effect
South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) · South Carolina · In effect
AZ Election Deepfake Disclosure Law · Arizona · In effect
New Mexico Political Deepfake Law · New Mexico · In effect
Utah S.B. 131 (AI-generated political ads must say 'generated by AI') · Utah · In effect
Utah AI Policy Act · Utah · In effect
DC Bar Op. 388 (GenAI) · DC · In effect
NY Bar AI Report · NY · In effect
Oregon SB 1571 (campaign ads must disclose AI/synthetic media) · Oregon · In effect
WI AI Election Disclosure Law · Wisconsin · In effect
California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit · California · In effect
State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Poli · Arizona · In effect
Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Inte · Alabama · In effect
Michigan Election Deepfake Law · Michigan · In effect
Michigan HB 5141 (AI political-ad disclaimer) · Michigan · In effect
Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli · District of Columbia · In effect
Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clo · New Hampshire · In effect
NJ Supreme Court GenAI Notice · NJ · In effect
FL Bar Op. 24-1 (GenAI) · FL · In effect
Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS- · New York · In effect
State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy · Indiana · In effect
Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard · Minnesota · In effect
Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard · Oklahoma · In effect
State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui · South Dakota · In effect
Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007) · Tennessee · In effect
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo · California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · In effect
Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines · Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) · In effect
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutio · Ohio · In effect
Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intellige · New Jersey · In effect
CA Bar GenAI Guidance · CA · In effect
Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Gen · Washington · In effect
State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P · Kansas · In effect
SB 5152 (Election Synthetic Media) · Washington · In effect
Vermont H.410 / Act 132 (inventory of state AI / automated decision systems) · Vermont · In effect
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame · University of California (UC System) · In effect
NJ Bot Disclosure Act (bots must identify themselves) · New Jersey · In effect
AI Video Interview Act · Illinois · In effect
California Bot Disclosure Act (bots must self-identify in sales/election messaging) · California · In effect
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · In effect
Arizona HB 2592 AI state agencies — vetoed 2026 · Arizona · Vetoed
PR P. del S. 769 / Instituto IA (Express Veto) · Puerto Rico · Vetoed
NY PSC utility AI inquiry (Case 26-M-0552) · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Colorado AI Act (repealed) · Colorado · Repealed / replaced
PR P. del S. 731 (AI Public Procurement Law) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
New York Stealth Crawler Prohibition Act (2026) · New York · Proposed / pending
NC AG framework for a Duke data center rate class (2026) · North Carolina · Proposed / pending
PA HB 2800 frontier AI risk prevention · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
PA HR 637 urging federal frontier AI regulation · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
PA HB 2829 Advanced AI Accountability and Innovation Act · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
NJ S4758 AI companion disclosure · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
PA HR 653 AI workforce data study · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
NY AI Professional Impersonation Liability Bill · New York · Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 68 (Gov AI Framework) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
PR R.C. del S. 1 (AI Registry) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
AK SB 177 — AI deepfakes / cybersecurity / data privacy (dead, 2024) · Alaska · Expired
PUCT v. Texas AG — data center survey records · Texas · Blocked / in litigation
CA SB 7 No Robo Bosses Act (vetoed 2025) · CA · Vetoed
CA SB 1047 (vetoed) · CA · Vetoed
CA AB 3211 (died) · CA · Expired
OK HB 3577 (died) · OK · Expired

County AI disclosure and transparency rules (24)

In effect
Latah County ID data center regulations (2026)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Botetourt VA Google data center 2 MGD water cap (2026)

Botetourt County, VA · Effective August 19, 2026 · W. Va. Water Auth. — Botetourt County data center service determination (Aug. 2026)

Officials at the Western Virginia Water Authority confirmed in August 2026 that they will not approve Google requests for more than 2 million gallons of water per day for its planned data center in Botetourt County — even though the underlying contract permits Google to request up to 8 million gallons daily. The reason is physical rather than discretionary: the infrastructure to deliver more than 2 million gallons per day from Carvins Cove does not exist, and local officials say they are not prepared for that level of demand. Two features make this worth recording rather than treating as an ordinary utility contract. First, Google is contractually required to pay for the system upgrades needed to raise that ceiling, so the cost of expanding capacity sits with the customer creating the demand rather than with ratepayers. Second, the funding agreement requires the Water Authority to meet with Google every six months to review and project the facility's water needs — a recurring reassessment rather than a one-time approval. By projected water use, the Botetourt site would be Google's eighth-largest data center complex in the world.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Wasatch County UT AI use policy (Jul. 15, 2026)

Wasatch County, UT · Effective July 15, 2026 · 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy

San Mateo County, CA · Effective June 10, 2025 · 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.

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

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

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

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

Montgomery County, MD · Effective April 30, 2025 · Montgomery County Executive Order 2-25 (AI) (2025-04-30)

Montgomery County Executive Order establishing AI governance framework: requires AI inventory, impact assessment before deployment in resident-facing services, mandatory human review of consequential decisions, prohibition on facial-recognition use by county departments without Council authorization, and annual public reporting.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance

Santa Clara County, CA · Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)

Santa Clara County passed the nation's first county-level surveillance oversight law in 2016. County departments must get Board of Supervisors approval, publish a surveillance use policy, and file an impact report before acquiring surveillance technology, plus annual reports afterward. Still actively administered by the County Privacy Office.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Wood County WI data center notice ordinance (Ord. 26-9-2)

Wood County, WI · Effective September 15, 2026 · Wood County, Wis., Ordinance 26-9-2 (enacted Sept. 15, 2026), creating Wood County Code Ordinance 709

Wood County, Wisconsin now requires developers of large-scale data centers anywhere in the county, including inside its cities, villages and towns, to notify the county within 30 days of their first planning contact with a local municipality. Notice goes to the county Planning and Zoning Director, Administrative Coordinator and Corporation Counsel and must describe the project's location and design, farmland and land-use compatibility, impacts on roads, drainage, emergency services and infrastructure, environmental effects, and proposed mitigation. A large-scale data center is one with at least 25,000 square feet of principal buildings on a 10-acre-plus tract and at least 5,000 servers. The County Board enacted the ordinance 16-2 on September 15, 2026, and it took effect on passage. The county may then seek a mitigation agreement with the developer.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
King County GenAI Guidelines

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder

Montgomery County, MD · Effective November 20, 2023 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Santa Cruz County AI Policy

Santa Cruz County, CA · Effective September 19, 2023 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us

Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) · Effective April 1, 2023 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
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.

Full entry · News report
Blocked / in litigation
Finch-Mincey v. Effingham County (data center zoning ordinance, 2026)

Effingham County, GA · Finch-Mincey et al. v. Effingham County (Effingham Cnty. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 2026) — challenge to Ordinance 2026-352

Three Effingham County residents sued the county in early September 2026 to overturn Ordinance 2026-352, adopted August 4, 2026, which added data centers as a permitted use in industrial zones where they were previously not allowed. They argue the county skipped required public hearings before the Planning Board and County Commission in violation of Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law and its own rules, and raise Open Meetings Act and transparency claims tied to OpenAI's 'Project Camellia' data center. They ask the court to declare the ordinance invalid and bar its enforcement.

Full entry · News report
Blocked / in litigation
One Hundred Miles v. Effingham IDA (OpenAI data center, 2026)

Effingham County, GA · One Hundred Miles, Inc. et al. v. Effingham County Industrial Development Authority et al. (Effingham Cnty. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 21, 2026)

A coastal Georgia conservation group, One Hundred Miles, and five Effingham County residents, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, sued the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority on September 21, 2026. They allege the authority broke Georgia's Open Meetings and Open Records Acts while approving a deal for OpenAI's planned $20 billion 'Project Camellia' data center: listing it only as 'Project Gateway' on an agenda, discussing a roughly $900 million tax abatement in an improper closed session, rescheduling a meeting without proper notice, and selling public land without a public vote. They ask the court to void the authority's memorandum of understanding with OpenAI and the land-sale documents and to release the sale agreements. No ruling has been reported.

Full entry · News report
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).

Full entry · News report
Enacted (not yet in effect)
LA County ALPR immigration-data safeguards motion (Sept. 2025)

Los Angeles County, CA · LA County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Sept. 16, 2025, item 25-5022 (4-1); LASD Report Back, Dec. 11, 2025

On September 16, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to ask the Sheriff's Department to tighten its rules on license plate reader data. The board asked that the data never be shared for civil immigration enforcement unless state or county law requires it or a judge issues a warrant. It also asked for written sign-off on any disclosure, reports twice a year on who accessed the data, yearly privacy training, and annual compliance reviews by the Inspector General. The Sheriff runs independently, so the motion is a request. In December 2025 the Sheriff reported that a revised policy had been drafted, but it was not yet in force.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Pima County Project Blue

Pima County, AZ · Pima County, Ariz., Project Blue rezoning and development agreement (2025); Pima Cnty. Super. Ct. litigation

Pima County's role in Project Blue is an approval, not a restriction: after Tucson rejected the project in August 2025, the county board voted 3–2 to rezone and sell roughly 290 acres of county land, and on December 16, 2025 approved a development agreement with Beale Infrastructure to move the data center forward in unincorporated Pima County. Opponents sued under Arizona's open meeting law; a judge dismissed that suit in April 2026, with additional litigation filed in January 2026.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
PW Digital Gateway Litigation

Prince William County, VA · Oak Valley HOA et al. v. Prince William County (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 2026; appeal pending)

Courts voided Prince William County's December 2022 rezoning for the 2,100-acre Digital Gateway corridor of up to 37 data centers near Manassas Battlefield, finding the county violated state public-notice requirements. The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld that ruling on March 31, 2026. Following the ruling, Prince William County voted not to appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, and developers also dropped their appeals, effectively ending the legal challenge.

Full entry · Court record

City / local AI disclosure and transparency rules (111)

In effect
Urbana IL surveillance technology oversight ordinance (2026)

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Statute
In effect
NYC AEDT Bias Audit Law (LL 144)

New York City, NY · Effective January 1, 2023 · NYC Local Law 144 of 2021; NYC Admin. Code §§ 20-870 to 20-874

Employers and employment agencies in New York City may not use AI hiring or promotion tools unless the tool has passed an independent bias audit within the past year. Job candidates must be told an automated tool is being used and can request information about the data it relies on.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban

Oakland, CA · Oakland, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 9.64

Oakland requires City Council approval and public use policies before city agencies acquire any surveillance technology, and bans city use of facial recognition. In December 2020 the city added first-in-the-nation bans on predictive policing and other biometric surveillance (such as voice and gait recognition). Remains in effect, overseen by Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Chesapeake VA data center zoning ordinance (2026)

Chesapeake, VA · Effective August 18, 2026 · City of Chesapeake, Va. — Data Center Zoning Ordinance (adopted August 18, 2026); 8-month application pause (adopted July 21, 2026)

Chesapeake City Council voted 9-0 on August 18, 2026 to adopt a data center zoning ordinance, after months of debate and public comment in which the large majority of nearly forty speakers opposed data centers on noise, environmental and quality-of-life grounds. Under the ordinance, a data center anywhere in Chesapeake needs a Conditional Use Permit — meaning a developer must seek special approval rather than build by right — with one exception: the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park, where data centers remain permitted by right. Data centers are otherwise confined to the Industrial M-1 and M-2 districts. Applicants must submit detailed information about utility connections, water usage and cooling systems; must connect to public water and electricity rather than drawing their own; and must meet fire code and noise mitigation standards. Councilwoman Amanda Newins moved the amendment that shaped the final version, closing by-right loopholes and addressing groundwater use. This is a permanent zoning framework, and it sits alongside a separate temporary measure: on July 21, 2026 the Council imposed an eight-month pause on considering data center applications so it could gather public input and research the industry, and the city is running a public survey from September 1 to October 30, 2026. Chesapeake and neighboring Virginia Beach acted in the same week by different means — Chesapeake through zoning, Virginia Beach through a 12-month moratorium.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Clayton OH 365-day data center moratorium (2026)

Clayton, OH · Effective July 16, 2026 · City of Clayton, Ohio — resolution imposing a 365-day data center moratorium (adopted July 16, 2026)

Clayton City Council passed a resolution at its July 16, 2026 meeting imposing an immediate 'temporary' moratorium of 365 days on the acceptance and processing of applications for zoning, conditional use and building permits for DATA PROCESSING CENTERS. The reason the city gave is the most useful part of the record. Clayton's codified ordinances contain NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION OR USE CLASSIFICATION for data processing centers — and City staff noted such facilities COULD BE INTERPRETED TO FALL WITHIN THE CITY'S EXISTING DEFINITION OF A WAREHOUSE-TYPE USE. That is a live hazard for any municipality with an older code: a hyperscale computing facility arriving as a permitted warehouse, approved administratively, with no opportunity for review. City Manager Elaine Wittman said the moratorium was a way to protect the city until its codified ordinances are updated, and added that she did not think Clayton had enough open land to accommodate a data center anyway. The public exchange is worth preserving too. Resident Deborah Retman, a thirty-year Piqua City Schools teacher, pressed council on the word 'temporary' and on transparency, citing what happened in nearby PIQUA: that city approved zoning for a massive data center WITHOUT INFORMING RESIDENTS it was making the zoning change, because of a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, and residents have since gone to court to halt the project. Wittman replied that the term is temporary because state-level rules remain up in the air, that it could be less than 365 days, that any extension would require returning to council, and that the city would advertise upcoming decisions.

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

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

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

Full entry · News report
In effect
Berkeley CA "The Berkeley Rule" AI Policy (2026)

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

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

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Portland OR GenAI Policy

Portland, OR · Effective March 6, 2026 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NYC GUARD Act (Gov't AI Accountability)

New York City, NY · Effective December 26, 2025 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Oakland GenAI Policy

Oakland, CA · Effective December 1, 2024 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Phoenix GenAI AUP

Phoenix, AZ · Effective March 1, 2024 · 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.

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

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

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

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
San Jose AI Reviews Board

San Jose, CA · Effective August 1, 2023 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Boston Interim GenAI Guidelines

Boston, MA · Effective May 18, 2023 · 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.

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

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

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

Full entry · Statute
In effect
NYC EO 3 / Citywide AI Policy

New York City, NY · Effective January 19, 2022 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NYC Algorithmic Tools Reporting (LL35)

New York City, NY · Effective January 15, 2022 · 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.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance

Seattle, WA · Effective September 1, 2017 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
Proposed / pending
NYC AI rental listing disclosure proposal (Mamdani, 2026)

New York City, NY · NYC Mayor Mamdani AI rental listing disclosure proposal, introduced July 2026

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed a rule in July 2026 requiring landlords and rental listing platforms to disclose when artificial intelligence tools are used to generate, rank, or filter rental listings. The proposal is part of a broader Mamdani housing-affordability agenda and reflects growing concern about AI tools that use algorithmic pricing and screening to affect housing access. The proposal was pending City Council introduction as of the date of this entry.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Grand Rapids MI ALPR under surveillance policy (2026)

Grand Rapids, MI · City of Grand Rapids, Mich. — Administrative Order on ALPR under the Surveillance Technology Policy (Sept. 2026)

Grand Rapids moved its police automated license plate reader system, including Flock cameras, under the city's Surveillance Technology Policy by administrative order from City Manager Mark Washington, announced August 28 and due by mid-September 2026. The gap it closes is a chronological accident: the City Commission first approved an ALPR system in 2012, three years before Grand Rapids adopted its Surveillance Technology Policy in 2015, so the department's plate readers had operated outside the framework built to govern exactly that kind of technology for over a decade. GRPD added Flock cameras in June 2024. Under the order, all governance, oversight, reporting, complaint, audit and transparency rules now apply to any future purchase, renewal or expansion. The 31 existing units may keep operating, but renewal requires Public Safety Committee review and City Commission approval. GRPD's August 25 presentation is accepted as the 2026 annual report, and from 2027 ALPR is folded into regular annual surveillance reporting. The move followed pointed questioning of GRPD and Flock officials over data sharing and ICE access.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Janesville WI city 12-month data center moratorium (2026)

Janesville, WI · City of Janesville, WI data center moratorium ordinance (adopted Sept. 28, 2026)

The Janesville City Council voted unanimously on September 28, 2026 to pause data center development for 12 months. During the pause the city will not accept, process, review or approve data center applications, including rezonings, permits and annexations, while it writes zoning rules for data centers. City staff also may not solicit data center projects or sign nondisclosure agreements about them during the pause. This is the City of Janesville, separate from the Town of Janesville, which has its own moratorium.

Full entry · News report
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.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Portland OR data center NDA resolution (2026)

Portland, OR · Effective September 16, 2026 · Portland, Or. — council resolution urging city administrators not to sign data center non-disclosure agreements and to explore a moratorium, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026

The Portland City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to URGE city administrators not to sign non-disclosure agreements with prospective data center developers, and to EXPLORE a moratorium on data centers. Oregon's largest city is the latest in a series of Oregon jurisdictions taking steps to rein in the industry, with local governments raising concerns about power consumption, land use, SECRECY and other environmental impacts. BE PRECISE ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES. It is a RESOLUTION and it URGES — it does not prohibit. Salem, acting two days earlier, went further and actually PROHIBITED NDAs related to data center developments while requiring that council be notified of all NDAs. Portland's measure asks administrators to decline them and directs exploration of a pause. A sponsor said as much: Councilmember Tiffany Koyama Lane called it 'a first step… and it's an immediate step that we can take today.' Her framing of why NDAs matter is the clearest statement of the transparency problem in this dataset: 'This resolution at its core is about responsible, good governance, PROTECTING HOW DECISIONS GET MADE IN OUR CITY. It's about transparency, and it's also about building and public trust.' That is the right diagnosis. A non-disclosure agreement signed by city staff early in a data center negotiation determines what a council and the public can know about power draw, water use, tax treatment and employment commitments at the moment those terms are still negotiable — by the time the agreement surfaces, the decisions are effectively made. Regulating NDAs is therefore a control on the PROCESS that precedes every land-use control this dataset otherwise records. Context: a new poll finds TWO-THIRDS OF OREGON VOTERS WANT A MORATORIUM on new data centers, and data centers have become an issue in the governor's race between Gov. Tina Kotek and her Republican challenger.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Ocean City MD first municipal AI policy (2026)

Ocean City, MD · Effective August 26, 2026 · Ocean City, Md. — first municipal AI policy governing town workers, sensitive data, approved tools and wearable devices (2026)

Ocean City adopted its FIRST AI POLICY, setting rules for TOWN WORKERS covering SENSITIVE DATA, APPROVED TOOLS and WEARABLE DEVICES as the technology spreads. The wearable-devices provision is the one worth noting, because it is rare. Most municipal AI policies in this dataset govern software — which generative tools staff may use, what may be pasted into them, whether output must be reviewed by a human. Extending the policy to WEARABLES reaches hardware that records continuously and often without the awareness of the people being recorded: smart glasses, body-worn recorders, AI pins and the like. For a beach resort town whose employees include lifeguards, police, inspectors and public works crews operating constantly among the public, that is a live question rather than a theoretical one. The approved-tools element is the other standard protection: restricting staff to a vetted list is what prevents sensitive municipal data being pasted into whatever consumer chatbot an employee happens to prefer. The policy's actual requirements are not established here.

Full entry · News report
Repealed / replaced
Chillicothe OH data center moratorium, rescinded (2026)

Chillicothe, OH · Effective August 24, 2026 · City of Chillicothe, Ohio — 60-day emergency data center moratorium (Aug. 24, 2026), rescinded Sept. 14, 2026

Chillicothe City Council unanimously passed a 60-day emergency moratorium on data centers on August 24, 2026, taking effect immediately. On September 14 the council reconsidered and lifted it after members learned of a February 2026 zoning certification letter in which the city's chief building official said a data center would be a permitted use at the former paper mill site in the General Industrial district. Alignment Engine plans a data center there. Councilman Jeff Creed won a committee vote to draft a revised moratorium that would exempt that site and set limits for other data centers, and city officials are expected to update the Unified Development Code with permanent rules.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Springfield IL Flock ALPR renewal w/ safeguards (Jul. 7, 2026)

Springfield, IL · Effective July 7, 2026 · City of Springfield, Ill., ordinance renewing Flock Safety ALPR services, as amended (passed July 7, 2026)

On July 7, 2026, Springfield, Illinois renewed its Flock license plate camera contract for two years, about $508,000. The council voted unanimously after adding privacy safeguards proposed by Alderman Shawn Gregory and modeled on ACLU guidance. The ordinance as amended calls for regular public reports on the cameras and their effectiveness, and for greater transparency. Reports also describe a requirement to tell the council quickly about any data breach or misuse. The cameras stay in use.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Resolution setting Seattle data-center impact-study framework

Seattle · Effective June 9, 2026 · 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.

Full entry · Agency page
81 more
Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr · Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · In effect
Henrico County VA Schools AI Policy 5-6.6 · Henrico, VA · In effect
Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn · Austin, TX · In effect
Columbus City Schools AI Policy (teacher discretion, plagiarism rules) · Columbus, OH · In effect
Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program · Tampa, FL · In effect
Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program ( · Orlando, FL · In effect
Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance) · San Francisco Unified School District, CA · In effect
San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL · San Marcos, TX · In effect
Township High School District 211 · Palatine, IL · In effect
Durham NC Public Schools · Durham, NC · In effect
Iowa City Community School District · Iowa City, IA · In effect
Baltimore City Public Schools · Baltimore, MD · In effect
Fresno USD AI Guidance · Fresno, CA · In effect
AUHSD AI Guidance · Anaheim, CA · In effect
Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa · Evanston, IL · In effect
Mesa Public Schools AZ · Mesa, AZ · In effect
Tucson Project Blue Rejection · Tucson, AZ · In effect
Austin AI Governance Resolution (2025) · Austin, TX · In effect
Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime · Seattle, WA · In effect
Hialeah GenAI Policy · Hialeah, FL · In effect
Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige · Chappaqua Central School District, NY · In effect
Tulsa GenAI Policy · Tulsa, OK · In effect
Birmingham AL GenAI Policy · Birmingham, AL · In effect
CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff · Chicago Public Schools, IL · In effect
Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5 · Detroit, MI · In effect
San Diego GenAI Policy · San Diego, CA · In effect
Metro Nashville GenAI Policy · Nashville, TN · In effect
Arlington TX GenAI Policy · Arlington, TX · In effect
Louisville Metro GenAI Policy · Louisville, KY · In effect
SLC GenAI Policy · Salt Lake City, UT · In effect
St. Louis GenAI Policy · St. Louis, MO · In effect
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09) · Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · In effect
SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Fort Worth GenAI Policy · Fort Worth, TX · In effect
San Antonio GenAI Pilot Governance · San Antonio, TX · In effect
SF Generative AI Guidelines · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Seattle Generative AI Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
San Jose GenAI Guidelines · San Jose, CA · In effect
Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief · Peninsula School District, WA · In effect
Boston GenAI Guidelines · Boston, MA · In effect
Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized · Portland, OR · In effect
Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing · Boston, MA · In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri · Oakland, CA · In effect
Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) · Oakland, CA · In effect
NYPD POST Act · New York City, NY · In effect
Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M · Madison, WI · In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan · San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · In effect
Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Cambridge, MA · In effect
Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance · Yellow Springs, OH · In effect
Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance · Indianapolis / Marion County · Proposed / pending
Keller HOA / City of Keller v. Westlake TX data center suit (2026) · Westlake, TX · Blocked / in litigation
Cheyenne Microsoft data center annexation challenges (2026) · Cheyenne, WY · Blocked / in litigation
NYC AI Action Plan · New York City, NY · In effect
San José AI Policy · San Jose, CA · In effect
Long Beach GenAI Guidance · Long Beach, CA · In effect
Pittsburgh GenAI Use Policy · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
Warrenton Amazon Data Center Fight · Warrenton, VA · Blocked / in litigation
New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules · New Orleans, LA · In effect
Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance · Minneapolis, MN · Proposed / pending
Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety · Flagstaff, AZ · Expired
Chicago data center energy/water benchmarking disclosure (SO2026-0027165) · Chicago, IL · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight · New York City · Proposed / pending
AI Gendered Impact Assessment + Interagency Taskforce · New York City · Proposed / pending
NYC resolution urging NY State to pass Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356) · New York City · Status unknown
Atlanta City Council resolution accepting AI Commission recommendations · Atlanta · Status unknown
Atlanta proposed surveillance technology ordinance (2026) · Atlanta, GA · Proposed / pending
Boston surveillance ordinance amendment proposal (2026) · Boston, MA · Proposed / pending
Harmony MN proposed data center ordinance (2026) · Harmony, MN · Proposed / pending
Kirksville MO proposed data center zoning ordinance (2026) · Kirksville, MO · Proposed / pending
Anchorage AO 2026-108 surveillance technology / ALPR ordinance · Anchorage, AK · Proposed / pending
NYC Int 1196-2025 · New York, NY · Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B25-0114) · Washington, DC · Proposed / pending
San Antonio DC Water Disclosure · San Antonio, TX · Proposed / pending
Chicago City AI Ordinance (stalled) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
NYC AI Oversight Office Bill · New York City, NY · Proposed / pending
Chicago AI police report ban (proposed, O2026-0024089) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
Brooks v. Wilmington OH emergency rezoning challenge (2026) · Wilmington, OH · Blocked / in litigation
Lowell MA Markley data center diesel generator injunction (2026) · Lowell, MA · Blocked / in litigation
DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted) · Washington, DC · Expired

All topics · Full directory · Submit a correction