Home › AI Laws › Virginia › Fairfax
AI Laws in Fairfax, Virginia
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 29 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Fairfax, Virginia: 10+ federal protections, 17 Virginia state-level rules, and 2 local Fairfax/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, data-center siting and energy, and government use of AI. 14 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Fairfax local AI rules (and Fairfax County)
2 local AI rules specific to Fairfax, Virginia or Fairfax County.
-
In effect Limited protection
Fairfax County VA Public Schools
Fairfax, VA · Effective 2025-09-01 · Fairfax County VA Public Schools — FCPS Forward: AI & The Future of Learning (Interim) (2025-09-01)
Interim guidance while a board-adopted policy is drafted (Oct 2025). Approved tools include Adobe Express, Google Storybook/LM, ChatGPT for Teachers pilot configured not to train OpenAI models; students cannot be compelled to interact with AI.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Fairfax County Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Fairfax County, VA · Effective 2024-09-10 · ZOA (Data Centers, 2024-09-10) (2024-09-10)
Adds use-specific standards for data centers covering noise, building design, and proximity to residential uses; tightens permitted districts.
Virginia-level AI rules most relevant to Fairfax
17 Virginia state rules apply to residents and businesses in Fairfax. Showing the 8 most relevant to Fairfax's local picture; 9 more are on the Virginia jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Limited protection
Virginia VCDPA (opt out of profiling, $7,500/violation)
Virginia · Effective 2023-01-01 · Va. Code 59.1-575 to 59.1-585 (esp. 59.1-577, 59.1-580, 59.1-584); HB 2307 / SB 1392 (2021)
Virginia's comprehensive privacy law gives consumers the right to opt out of 'profiling' used to make decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects, such as automated decisions affecting credit, housing, employment, or essential services. Businesses must obtain heightened consent before processing the data of a known child (via federal COPPA) and must conduct documented data protection assessments for higher-risk processing, including certain profiling. The Attorney General enforces the law and may seek up to $7,500 per violation; there is no private right of action.
-
In effect Moderate protection
VA PDD Act (2017 — first)
Virginia · Effective 2017-07-01 · Va. Code §§ 46.2-100, 46.2-908.1:1
Virginia was the first U.S. state to legalize sidewalk delivery robots. PDDs may operate on sidewalks and crosswalks (10 mph cap, 50 lb cargo limit), must carry $100,000 liability insurance and a visible operator ID, and localities may further regulate them. Starship Technologies' deployment at George Mason in 2019 traces back to this law.
-
In effect Moderate protection
VA SCC Data Center Rate Case
VA · Effective 2024-11-13 · Va. SCC Case No. PUR-2024-00184
Virginia's State Corporation Commission opened a formal investigation into how data center load growth — driven by AI compute demand — should be allocated across electricity rate classes, to keep residential customers from subsidizing AI data centers. Includes minimum-billing demands and special tariffs.
-
In effect Limited protection
VA DOI AI Bulletin
VA · Effective 2024-07-22 · Virginia SCC Bureau of Insurance Administrative Letter 2024-01 (2024-07-22)
The VA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in VA 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.
-
Vetoed Unknown
VA HB 2094 (vetoed)
VA · Va. HB 2094 (2025) — vetoed Mar. 24, 2025
Virginia HB 2094 would have imposed Colorado-style duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems with consumer disclosures and impact assessments. Governor Youngkin vetoed it on March 24, 2025 — the first red-state veto of an EU-AI-Act-style framework.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
VA Data Center Cost-Allocation Law
Virginia · Effective 2026-07-01 · Va. SB 253 / HB 1393 (2026); Va. HB 507 (2026)
In 2026 Virginia enacted legislation directing utility regulators to make sure data centers pay their fair share of electricity costs rather than shifting them to households. Companion HB 507 requires denial of air permits for new data center generators after July 2026 unless they meet strict emissions tiers.
-
In effect Limited protection
Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole)
Virginia · Effective 2025-07-01 · Va. Code 19.2-11.14; HB 1642 (2025), Va. Acts c. 637
Virginia requires that key criminal-justice decisions be made by a human being, even when an AI tool produces a recommendation or prediction. The rule covers pretrial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, and rehabilitation. No such decision may be made without a human decision-maker, and any AI-generated recommendation is subject to any challenge or objection allowed by law.
-
In effect Moderate protection
VA EO 30 (2024)
VA · Effective 2024-01-18 · Va. Exec. Order No. 30 (Jan. 18, 2024)
Governor Youngkin's EO 30 directs the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) to issue AI policy and IT standards for state agencies, develops K-12 and higher-ed AI education guidelines, sets law-enforcement AI standards, and creates a Virginia AI Task Force.
Federal AI rules that apply in Fairfax, Virginia
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Fairfax, Virginia. 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 Fairfax, Virginia
Are there AI laws in Fairfax, Virginia?
What federal AI rules apply in Fairfax?
Does Virginia have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Virginia?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Fairfax?
How do I report an AI law violation in Fairfax?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Fairfax?
Is Fairfax regulated by Virginia's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Fairfax?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Fairfax ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.