Home › AI Laws › Oregon › Salem
AI Laws in Salem, Oregon
As of 2026-07-26, AI Laws USA tracks 23 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Salem, Oregon: 10+ federal protections, 13 Oregon state-level rules (no Salem-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, government use of AI, automated decision-making, and consumer data privacy. 11 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Salem local AI rules (and Marion County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Salem, Oregon.
- Honest gap: We don't currently index any Salem-specific AI ordinances. Federal and Oregon state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email [email protected].
Oregon-level AI rules most relevant to Salem
13 Oregon state rules apply to residents and businesses in Salem. Showing the 8 most relevant to Salem's local picture; 5 more are on the Oregon jurisdiction page.
-
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 Limited 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
Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for D
Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric) · Effective 2026-05-07 · Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for Data Centers
The Oregon PUC approved a large-load tariff for data centers exceeding 20 MW that requires customers to fund 100% of distribution upgrades, sign 10-to-30-year contracts, pay minimum demand charges at 90% of contracted capacity, and adds a 1 cent/kWh surcharge on projects over 100 MW to offset residential and low-income customer costs. In July 2026 the PUC approved PGE's compliance rate filing implementing the framework: data-center customers' rates rise about 29.7% while residential bills drop about 1.3%.
-
In effect Limited protection
Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)
Oregon · Effective 2025-02-11 · Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)
Oregon Enterprise Information Services establishes enterprise-wide governance for generative and agentic AI across executive-branch agencies, requiring AI adoption plans, human review of outputs, approval of new AI uses, and use of only approved tools.
-
In effect Limited protection
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G
Oregon Department of Education · Effective 2023-11-01 · Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms Guidance
Oregon's education department maintains generative AI guidance and a companion 'Developing Policy and Protocols' document to help districts adopt safe, ethical, equitable AI policies in K-12 classrooms.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Moderate protection
Oregon SB 1546 (AI companion chatbot disclosure + private right of action)
Oregon · Effective 2027-01-01 · Or. SB 1546 (2026 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2027
Oregon's AI Companion Chatbot Safety Act (SB 1546), signed March 31, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, is the first U.S. chatbot law to include a direct private right of action. It regulates operators of 'AI companions' — defined as AI systems designed to simulate a sustained human-like relationship and retain contextual information across interactions. Operators must: clearly and repeatedly disclose that the system is AI, not a human (recurring disclosure every three hours for adults and every hour for minors); implement protocols to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm and direct users to crisis resources; protect minors from manipulative engagement mechanics (variable-ratio reinforcement, unpredictable rewards). Any person harmed by a violation may sue directly for $1,000 per violation, any greater actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. The law was passed near-unanimously by the Oregon legislature on March 5, 2026.
-
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 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 Salem, Oregon
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Salem, 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 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 Salem, Oregon
Are there AI laws in Salem, Oregon?
What federal AI rules apply in Salem?
Does Oregon have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Oregon?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Salem?
How do I report an AI law violation in Salem?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Salem?
Is Salem regulated by Oregon's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Salem?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Salem ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.