Home › AI Laws › Connecticut › Greenwich
AI Laws in Greenwich, Connecticut
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 18 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Greenwich, Connecticut: 10+ federal protections, 7 Connecticut state-level rules, and 1 local Greenwich ordinance. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, consumer protection, consumer data privacy, and children's online safety. 5 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Greenwich local AI rules (and Fairfield County)
1 local AI rule specific to Greenwich, Connecticut or Fairfield County.
-
In effect Limited protection
Greenwich CT Public Schools
Greenwich, CT · Effective 2025-09-25 · Greenwich CT Public Schools — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2025-09-25)
District-adopted guidelines: enterprise Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini for Education for staff and grades 9-12; bar on consumer AI with student data; AI disclosure expectation; ban on AI as sole basis for grading or discipline.
Connecticut-level AI rules
7 Connecticut state rules apply to residents and businesses in Greenwich. Sorted strongest first.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act)
Connecticut · Effective 2026-10-01 · Conn. Public Act 26-15 (SB 5, 2026)
After years of failed attempts, Connecticut enacted a comprehensive AI law in 2026. It requires employers to disclose AI used in employment decisions, mandates disclosure when layoffs relate to AI, imposes some of the nation's strictest AI companion-chatbot rules (especially for children), and codifies that automated decision-making is no defense to discrimination claims. Most provisions start October 1, 2026.
-
In effect Limited protection
Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) (profiling opt-out)
Connecticut · Effective 2023-07-01 · Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-515 to 42-525; P.A. 22-15
Connecticut's consumer privacy law lets residents opt out of having their personal data used for profiling that feeds automated decisions carrying legal or similarly significant effects. Businesses that profile consumers for high-risk purposes must also run data protection assessments to weigh the risks. Other consumer rights include access, correction, deletion, and opting out of targeted advertising and data sales. The Attorney General enforces the law under Connecticut's unfair trade practices framework, and there is no individual right to sue.
-
In effect Limited protection
CT Rideshare Dynamic-Pricing Law (surge-price limits)
Connecticut · Effective 2018-01-01 · Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 13b-118; Sec. 13b-117 (penalty); P.A. 17-140
When a ride-hailing company (like Uber or Lyft) uses dynamic or 'surge' pricing, Connecticut law requires it to warn riders before they request a ride, give them a tool to estimate the fare, and make them confirm they understand surge pricing will apply. The law also caps price gouging during emergencies: a company cannot charge more than 2.5 times its usual fare in any area covered by a declared disaster emergency. The state transportation commissioner oversees TNC registration and can suspend or revoke it for violations. Operating without a valid registration can draw a substantial fine.
-
In effect Limited protection
CT DOI AI Bulletin
CT · Effective 2024-02-26 · Connecticut Insurance Department Bulletin MC-25 (2024-02-26)
The CT Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in CT 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.
-
Expired Unknown
CT SB 2 (died)
CT · Conn. SB 2 (2024 Reg. Sess.) — died in House
Connecticut SB 2 was a comprehensive AI bill mirroring Colorado SB24-205. Passed the Senate in 2024 but was never called for a House vote after Governor Lamont opposition over potential business impact.
-
In effect Limited protection
CT SB 1103 (state-government AI oversight)
Connecticut · Effective 2023-07-01 · 2023 Conn. Public Acts 23-16 (SB 1103)
This law sets rules for how Connecticut's own state government uses artificial intelligence. It directs the Department of Administrative Services to catalog the AI systems that state agencies use and to assess them for unlawful discrimination and disparate impact. It also establishes an AI officer in the Office of Policy and Management to develop AI policies and procedures that agencies must follow. The law governs public-sector use rather than imposing penalties on private companies.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
CT SB 1295 (AI training-data disclosure)
Connecticut · Effective 2026-07-01 · 2025 Conn. Public Acts 25-153 (SB 1295), amending Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 42-520
This amendment to Connecticut's Data Privacy Act adds a first-in-the-nation transparency rule about AI training data. Businesses must state in their privacy notice whether they collect, use, or sell personal data to train large language models. The disclosure applies regardless of how the trained model is ultimately used. Like the rest of the privacy act, it is enforced by the Attorney General under Connecticut's consumer protection law.
Federal AI rules that apply in Greenwich, Connecticut
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Greenwich, Connecticut. 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 Greenwich, Connecticut
Are there AI laws in Greenwich, Connecticut?
What federal AI rules apply in Greenwich?
Does Connecticut have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Connecticut?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Greenwich?
How do I report an AI law violation in Greenwich?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Greenwich?
Is Greenwich regulated by Connecticut's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Greenwich?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Greenwich ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.