Home › AI Laws › Oregon › Eugene
AI Laws in Eugene, Oregon
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 21 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Eugene, Oregon: 10+ federal protections, 8 Oregon state-level rules, and 3 local Eugene/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer data privacy, consumer protection, government use of AI, and police and surveillance AI. 10 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Eugene local AI rules (and Lane County)
3 local AI rules specific to Eugene, Oregon or Lane County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Eugene, OR · Effective 2020-09-14 · Ord. 20618 (2020-09-14)
Requires council approval and impact reports for any city surveillance acquisition or use.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Eugene Surveillance Ordinance
Eugene, OR · Effective 2017-12-01 · Eugene Code, Surveillance Technology (Ord. 20580) (2017)
Eugene OR ordinance requiring City Council approval and a public use policy before any city department acquires or uses surveillance technology.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Lane County OR
Lane County, OR · Effective 2025-08-19 · Lane County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-08-19)
Lane County OR adopted generative AI use policy for county employees: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and requires disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications.
Oregon-level AI rules
8 Oregon state rules apply to residents and businesses in Eugene. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Moderate protection
OR weaponized-drone ban
Oregon · Effective 2013-07-29 · Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 837.300–837.380
Oregon prohibits anyone from operating a weaponized drone, requires law-enforcement drones to be authorized for specific missions, and provides a civil action for property owners whose airspace is repeatedly invaded by drones flying below 400 feet.
-
In effect Moderate protection
OR AG Rosenblum
OR · Effective 2024-12-24 · OR AG Rosenblum — AI Guidance (UTPA, OCPA, Equality Act) (2024-12-24)
Clarifies that Oregon's UTPA, OCPA, and Equality Act apply to AI absent AI-specific law. Misrepresenting AI capabilities, discriminatory outcomes, and processing biometric/sensitive data without consent are actionable.
-
In effect Limited protection
Oregon SB 619 (opt out of profiling; child-data & assessment rules)
Oregon · Effective 2024-07-01 · Oregon Consumer Privacy Act, 2023 Or. Laws (SB 619), ORS 646A.570-646A.589, eff. July 1, 2024
Oregon's consumer privacy law lets residents opt out of having their personal data used for profiling that supports decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It adds stronger protections for data about people the business knows are under 16, and requires businesses to complete and document data protection assessments for processing that poses a heightened risk, including risky profiling. The Attorney General enforces it; there is no private lawsuit right.
-
In effect Moderate protection
OR PUC Data Center Rate Class
OR · Effective 2024-12-04 · Or. PUC Order No. 24-447
Oregon's Public Utility Commission established a separate large-load rate class — covering data centers, crypto, and AI compute customers — to protect residential customers from cost-shifting and require minimum-take obligations. PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric must apply the new tariffs to incoming AI data centers.
-
In effect Moderate protection
OR EO 23-06
OR · Effective 2023-11-28 · Or. Exec. Order No. 23-06 (Nov. 28, 2023)
Governor Kotek's EO 23-06 establishes Oregon's AI Advisory Council with an equity focus. It produced the 2024 Action Plan with 12 principles and 74 recommendations governing state agencies' AI use.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
SB 1546 (OR Chatbot Safety)
Oregon · Effective 2027-01-01 · Or. SB 1546 (2026), sponsored by Sen. Lisa Reynolds
Oregon's chatbot safety law — the first major chatbot measure passed in 2026 — requires AI chatbot operators to tell users they're talking to AI, prevent outputs that could cause suicidal thoughts, and refer users expressing suicidal ideation to mental-health resources. Kids get extra protections: hourly AI reminders and break reminders, no sexual content, no addictive reward loops, and no emotional manipulation when a child tries to log off. Users harmed by violations can sue. Effective January 1, 2027.
-
In effect Limited protection
Oregon SB 1571 (campaign ads must disclose AI/synthetic media)
Oregon · Effective 2024-03-27 · 2024 Or. Laws ch. 62 (SB 1571)
Oregon requires campaign communications that use synthetic media (an AI-generated or AI-manipulated image, audio, or video depicting a person's voice or likeness) to carry a disclosure telling viewers the content was altered or created with artificial intelligence. The Secretary of State (or the Attorney General when the Secretary of State race is involved) can go to court to stop a non-compliant communication. Violators can face a civil penalty.
-
In effect Limited protection
Oregon POWER Act
Oregon · Effective 2025-06-05 · Or. HB 3546 (2025) (POWER Act)
Oregon's first-in-the-nation POWER Act makes data centers and crypto-mining operations pay for their own grid costs instead of shifting them onto household utility bills. Large users over 20 MW are placed in a separate rate class and must sign long-term contracts committing to minimum payments.
Federal AI rules that apply in Eugene, Oregon
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Eugene, Oregon. 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 Eugene, Oregon
Are there AI laws in Eugene, Oregon?
What federal AI rules apply in Eugene?
Does Oregon have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Oregon?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Eugene?
How do I report an AI law violation in Eugene?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Eugene?
Is Eugene regulated by Oregon's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Eugene?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Eugene ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.