Home › AI Laws › Nevada › Boulder City
AI Laws in Boulder City, Nevada
As of 2026-07-19, AI Laws USA tracks 19 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Boulder City, Nevada: 10+ federal protections, 8 Nevada state-level rules, and 1 local Boulder City ordinance. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, healthcare AI, automated decision-making, and deepfakes. 8 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Boulder City local AI rules (and Clark County)
1 local AI rule specific to Boulder City, Nevada or Clark County.
-
Blocked / in litigation Limited protection
Boulder City NV appeal vs BLM data center approval (authorized July 14, 2026)
Boulder City, NV · Boulder City, NV council authorization, July 14, 2026, appeal and stay request vs BLM Townsite data center approval
Boulder City, Nevada is fighting a federally approved data center. On July 14, 2026 the city council voted to appeal the Bureau of Land Management's approval of the Townsite data center project on BLM land near the city, and to seek a stay that would pause the project while the appeal is heard. The appeal must be filed by July 27, 2026.
Nevada-level AI rules
8 Nevada state rules apply to residents and businesses in Boulder City. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Moderate protection
NV SB 199 (AI mental-health misrepresentation)
NV · Effective 2025-07-01 · 2025 Nev. Stat. Ch. 283 (AB 406); amends NRS Chs. 391, 433, 629
Nevada made it a deceptive trade practice for AI chatbots and companion apps to falsely claim — or imply — that they are licensed mental-health professionals. Aimed squarely at the growing class of GenAI 'therapy' apps that mislead vulnerable users about clinical credentials.
-
In effect Limited protection
Nevada AB 406 (AI can't pose as a therapist)
Nevada · Effective 2025-07-01 · 2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 7 (new section of NRS ch. 433)
Nevada prohibits an AI provider from making available in the state an AI system that is specifically programmed to provide a service that would amount to the practice of professional mental or behavioral health care if a person did it. AI providers also may not state or imply that their AI system can provide such care or that it is a therapist, counselor, psychiatrist, or doctor. The state must publish educational materials directing people to licensed care. Genuine self-help materials and AI used by licensed providers for administrative tasks are not prohibited.
-
In effect Limited protection
NV AB 511 (2011 — first AV statute)
Nevada · Effective 2011-06-17 · NRS Ch. 482A (2011 Nev. Stat. Ch. 461)
Nevada was the first U.S. state to legalize autonomous vehicles. AB 511 directed the DMV to write rules for testing and operating self-driving cars on Nevada roads, including a special license endorsement and an autonomous-vehicle testing license, and made Nevada the proving ground for the early Google self-driving project.
-
In effect Limited protection
NV DOI AI Bulletin
NV · Effective 2024-02-23 · Nevada DOI Bulletin 24-001 (2024-02-23)
The NV Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in NV must maintain a written AI program with governance, risk-management, testing, third-party-AI oversight, and documentation controls. The bulletin operationalizes existing unfair-trade-practice and unfair-discrimination law as applied to insurers' AI use cases — underwriting, pricing, claims, fraud detection, and marketing.
-
In effect Limited protection
Nevada AB 406 (therapists barred from using AI in care)
Nevada · Effective 2025-07-01 · 2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 8 (new section of NRS ch. 629)
Nevada bars licensed mental and behavioral health care providers from using an artificial intelligence system when delivering professional mental or behavioral health care directly to a patient. Providers may still use AI for administrative support, such as scheduling, billing, managing records, and organizing session notes, but any such use must comply with patient-privacy and health-record security laws. A violation is treated as unprofessional conduct.
-
In effect Limited protection
NV NCII Deepfake Law
Nevada · Effective 2025-10-01 · 2025 Nev. Stat. (SB 213); NRS 200.780
Nevada expanded its intimate-images law to explicitly cover AI-generated and digitally manipulated images — anything that could reasonably be mistaken for a real depiction of the person, whether or not their actual image was used. Knowing distribution is a Category D felony (1–4 years).
-
In effect Limited protection
NV AI Election Ad Disclosure
Nevada · Effective 2026-01-01 · 2025 Nev. Laws Ch. 224 (AB 73); NRS ch. 294A
Nevada political ads containing AI-generated or digitally manipulated images, audio, or video must disclose it clearly, effective January 1, 2026. Wrongly depicted candidates can seek legal relief; satire and entertainment content is exempt.
-
In effect Limited protection
Nevada AB 406 (no AI replacing school counselors)
Nevada · Effective 2025-07-01 · 2025 Nev. Stat., AB 406, Sec. 2 (amending NRS ch. 391)
Nevada prohibits public schools, including charter schools, from using artificial intelligence to perform the mental-health-related functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist, or school social worker. The law directs the Nevada Department of Education to develop a policy governing how those school employees may use AI when providing therapy, counseling, or other mental or behavioral health services to students.
Federal AI rules that apply in Boulder City, Nevada
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Boulder City, Nevada. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective 2025-09-05 · Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal.)
Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic over its use of pirated-book datasets to train Claude. In June 2025 Judge William Alsup ruled that training on lawfully purchased books was fair use. The piracy claims (LibGen ingestion) were not adjudicated to a final ruling — they proceeded toward settlement. In September 2025 Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement, though Judge Alsup denied preliminary approval without prejudice pending additional information on the claims protocol and attorney fees.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot)
S.D. Fla. · Effective 2025-08-01 · Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)
A Florida federal jury found Tesla 33% liable in August 2025 for the 2019 death of Naibel Benavides Leon, in a crash involving Autopilot. The jury awarded $243M ($129M compensatory + $200M punitive); in February 2026 the court denied Tesla's post-trial motions and upheld the verdict in full — the first Autopilot wrongful-death verdict against Tesla.
-
In effect Stronger protection
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective 2025-06-23 · 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.
-
In effect Stronger protection
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective 2025-05-19 · Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146)
Makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of someone without consent, including AI-generated deepfakes. Social media and similar platforms must give victims a way to request removal and must take the content (and known copies) down within 48 hours. The platform removal requirement became enforceable May 19, 2026, and the FTC has already begun enforcement.
-
Blocked / in litigation Stronger protection
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective 2025-04-16 · 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.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective 2025-03-18 · 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.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Thomson Reuters v. Ross
D. Del. · Effective 2025-02-11 · Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
Thomson Reuters sued legal-research startup Ross Intelligence in 2020 for copying Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal-research tool. In February 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation) granted summary judgment to Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement and rejected Ross's fair-use defense — the first definitive U.S. ruling on AI-training fair use. No jury trial occurred: a 2023 opinion had denied summary judgment and pointed toward trial, but the court invited renewed briefing and reversed course in the 2025 ruling.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective 2024-11-20 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)
SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.
-
In effect Stronger protection
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective 2024-04-01 · 16 C.F.R. Part 461; 89 Fed. Reg. 15017
The FTC's Impersonation Rule lets the agency directly sue scammers who pretend to be a government agency or a real business — including those who use AI-cloned voices or generated images to do so. Civil penalties can reach $53,088 per violation. The FTC also issued a supplemental notice in February 2024 proposing to extend the rule to all individual impersonation.
-
In effect Stronger protection
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective 2024-02-08 · 47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17
Robocalls using AI-cloned or AI-generated voices are treated like other 'artificial voice' calls: callers need your prior express consent, must identify themselves, and must offer opt-outs for telemarketing. You can personally sue violators for $500 to $1,500 per illegal call.
Frequently asked questions about AI laws in Boulder City, Nevada
Are there AI laws in Boulder City, Nevada?
What federal AI rules apply in Boulder City?
Does Nevada have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Nevada?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Boulder City?
How do I report an AI law violation in Boulder City?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Boulder City?
Is Boulder City regulated by Nevada's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Boulder City?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Boulder City ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.