Home › AI Laws › California › Davis
AI Laws in Davis, California
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 65 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Davis, California: 10+ federal protections, 54 California state-level rules, and 1 local Davis ordinance. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, and deepfakes. 41 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Davis local AI rules (and Yolo County)
1 local AI rule specific to Davis, California or Yolo County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07)
Davis, CA · Effective 2018-03-20 · Ord. 2510 (2018-03-20)
Requires council approval, impact reports, and use policies before any city acquisition or use of surveillance tech (early CCOPS).
California-level AI rules most relevant to Davis
54 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in Davis. Showing the 8 most relevant to Davis's local picture; 46 more are on the California jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Stronger protection
CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · 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.
-
In effect Stronger protection
CA CPPA ADMT Regs
CA · Effective 2026-04-01 · 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.
-
In effect Moderate protection
CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory
CA · Effective 2025-01-13 · CA DOJ Legal Advisory (Jan. 13, 2025)
California's Attorney General issued a legal advisory making clear that existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, and privacy laws fully apply to AI — including the False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, CCPA, and FEHA. The advisory targets AI-washing, AI-driven discrimination, hallucination-driven misrepresentations, and AI scam impersonation.
-
In effect Moderate protection
CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization)
California · Effective 2013-01-01 · Cal. Veh. Code §§ 38750 et seq.
California's foundational autonomous-vehicle statute. SB 1298 directed the DMV to adopt regulations for testing and eventual deployment of AVs on California roads, including an autonomous-vehicle tester permit, insurance and bonding rules, and the framework later used for the Cruise and Waymo robotaxi authorizations.
-
In effect Limited protection
CA Bar GenAI Guidance
CA · Effective 2023-11-16 · State Bar of California, COPRAC Practical Guidance (Nov. 16, 2023)
California lawyers using ChatGPT, CoPilot, or other generative AI tools must protect client confidentiality, verify AI-generated work, supervise AI outputs, disclose AI use where required, and avoid billing for time saved by AI. Misuse of generative AI is a discipline-eligible violation.
-
Vetoed Unknown
CA SB 1047 (vetoed)
CA · Cal. SB 1047 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — vetoed Sept. 29, 2024
California SB 1047 would have required safety testing, kill-switches, and developer liability for frontier AI models trained above compute/cost thresholds. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 29, 2024 — a landmark veto that reshaped the U.S. frontier-AI policy debate.
-
In effect Limited protection
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · SB 53 (Stats. 2025)
The first US frontier-AI safety law in effect: the largest AI model developers must publish safety frameworks and transparency reports, report critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers who raise catastrophic-risk concerns.
-
In effect Moderate protection
CA AG Bonta
CA · Effective 2024-01-26 · CA AG Bonta — CCPA Investigative Sweep of Streaming Services (2024-01-26)
Sweep into streaming services' opt-out compliance; led to a $530K Sling TV settlement in 2025 and parallel CPPA actions (Honda $632,500) on ADMT-adjacent practices.
Federal AI rules that apply in Davis, California
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Davis, California. 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 issued a split ruling: training on lawfully purchased books was fair use, but ingesting pirated copies from LibGen was not. In September 2025 Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement — the largest AI copyright recovery to date.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Banner v. Tesla (Autopilot)
S.D. Fla. · Effective 2025-08-01 · Banner 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 verdict awarded $243M (later reduced to ~$220M) — 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.
-
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 constitutional and dispositive. 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., 694 F. Supp. 3d 467 (D. Del. 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. The 2023 jury trial verdict had been deadlocked; the 2025 ruling resolved liability.
-
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
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective 2024-04-30 · NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2024)
Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act — requiring parental consent for minors' social-media use, including algorithmic feeds — was permanently enjoined as unconstitutional in April 2024.
-
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 Davis, California
Are there AI laws in Davis, California?
What federal AI rules apply in Davis?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Davis?
How do I report an AI law violation in Davis?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Davis?
Is Davis regulated by California's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Davis?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Davis ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.