Home › AI Laws › California › San Francisco
AI Laws in San Francisco, California
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 75 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in San Francisco, California: 10+ federal protections, 54 California state-level rules, and 11 local San Francisco ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, AI disclosure and transparency, automated decision-making, and consumer data privacy. 49 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
San Francisco local AI rules (and San Francisco County)
11 local AI rules specific to San Francisco, California or San Francisco County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
SF Facial Recognition Ban
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-07-01 · S.F. Ordinance No. 103-19 (2019); S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B
San Francisco was the first US city to ban its own government agencies, including police, from using facial recognition technology. The ordinance also requires Board of Supervisors approval and public policies before city departments acquire other surveillance technologies.
-
In effect Limited protection
SF Generative AI Guidelines
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2023-12-11 · CCSF, Generative AI Guidelines (Dec. 2023, rev. July 2025)
San Francisco's citywide generative AI guidelines apply to employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors working for the city. They require human review and disclosure of AI-generated content, prohibit entering non-public information into AI tools, ban concealing AI use, and bar generating deepfake-style images, audio, or video. Most recently revised in July 2025.
-
In effect Stronger protection
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation)
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-06-13 · SF Admin. Code Ch. 19B (Stop Secret Surveillance Ord., 2019)
On May 14, 2019, San Francisco became the first city in the United States to ban its own government — including police — from using facial recognition technology. Codified at SF Admin. Code Chapter 19B. The ordinance has been the global template for municipal facial-recognition bans. Still in effect 2026.
-
In effect Moderate protection
SF delivery-robot permit (2017)
San Francisco · Effective 2018-01-15 · S.F. Pub. Works Code § 794
San Francisco became the first U.S. city to comprehensively restrict sidewalk delivery robots after constituent backlash. Supervisor Norman Yee's ordinance limits autonomous delivery devices to a small permit program (initially 9 city-wide and 3 per company), bans them from most sidewalks, caps speed at 3 mph in pedestrian zones, and requires a human chaperone.
-
In effect Limited protection
San Francisco Unified School District
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-11-12 · San Francisco Unified School District — Generative AI Use Guidelines (2024-11-12)
District guidelines authorize Microsoft Copilot enterprise for staff; bar student AI accounts under 13; require teacher disclosure when AI is used for instructional design; bar AI use to make discipline or placement decisions without human review.
-
In effect Stronger protection
SF Stop Secret Surveillance / FR Ban
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2019-06-06 · S.F. Ordinance No. 107-19, codified at S.F. Admin. Code ch. 19B
San Francisco was the first US city to ban its agencies, including police, from using facial recognition technology. The same law requires Board of Supervisors approval and public surveillance impact reports before any city department acquires any other surveillance technology.
-
In effect Limited protection
SF Prop E Police Surveillance
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2022-03-01 · S.F. Charter Amend., Prop. E (Mar. 8, 2022 election)
A San Francisco ballot measure that allows the police department to use new surveillance technology for up to a year while seeking Board of Supervisors approval. Civil liberties groups criticized it as a loophole in the city's 2019 surveillance ordinance.
-
In effect Limited protection
SF City GenAI Guidelines
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-04-08 · S.F. Mayor Exec. Directive 24-01 (Apr. 8, 2024)
San Francisco issued citywide guidelines for how municipal employees can use generative AI tools, requiring human review of AI outputs, prohibiting input of confidential data into public chatbots, and requiring department-level use policies.
-
Proposed / pending Proposed or pending
SF AI Services Disclosure (proposed)
San Francisco, CA · S.F. Bd. of Supervisors File No. 240828 (proposed)
Proposed San Francisco Board of Supervisors ordinance requiring city departments to disclose when AI tools are used in resident-facing services and to allow residents to request a human alternative.
-
Proposed / pending Proposed or pending
SF Data Center CU Ordinance (proposed)
San Francisco, CA · S.F. Bd. of Supervisors File No. 241015 (proposed)
Proposed San Francisco ordinance making new large data centers a conditional use requiring Planning Commission approval and detailed energy and water disclosures.
-
In effect Moderate protection
SF COIT GenAI Guidelines v2
San Francisco, CA · Effective 2024-09-01 · S.F. COIT, Generative AI Guidelines v2 (2024)
Updated City and County of San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines, adopted by the Committee on Information Technology, with specific rules for using ChatGPT-style tools in city work and tiered risk reviews.
California-level AI rules most relevant to San Francisco
54 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in San Francisco. Showing the 8 most relevant to San Francisco'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 Limited protection
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Penal Code 13663 (SB 524, 2025)
This law brings transparency to the use of AI in police reports. When a law enforcement report is generated wholly or partly by AI, the report must carry a per-page disclosure identifying the AI program used, along with the officer's signature verifying they reviewed it and that the facts are true. Agencies must keep the first AI-generated draft and an audit trail showing the user, data, and media involved, and vendors are barred from sharing or selling agency data except for the agency's own purposes.
-
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 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
California SB 896 (state AI risk analysis + AI disclaimers on gov communications)
California · Effective 2025-01-01 · SB 896, Stats. 2024 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act)
This law directs California's Office of Emergency Services to study the threats that generative AI could pose to the state's critical infrastructure, including mass-casualty risks, and report a summary to the Legislature each year. It also requires any state agency that uses generative AI to communicate with people about government services to add a disclaimer that AI generated the message and explain how to reach a human state employee.
-
In effect Limited protection
AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency)
California · Effective 2026-01-01 · Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3110–3111 (AB 2013, Stats. 2024)
Developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians must publicly post documentation about the datasets used to train their models, including sources, whether they contain personal information or copyrighted material, and time periods of collection. Applies to systems released or substantially modified since January 1, 2022.
-
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.
Federal AI rules that apply in San Francisco, California
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including San Francisco, 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 San Francisco, California
Are there AI laws in San Francisco, California?
What federal AI rules apply in San Francisco?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in San Francisco?
How do I report an AI law violation in San Francisco?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in San Francisco?
Is San Francisco regulated by California's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in San Francisco?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a San Francisco ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.