Home › AI Laws › California › Santa Cruz
AI Laws in Santa Cruz, California
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 66 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Santa Cruz, California: 10+ federal protections, 54 California state-level rules, and 2 local Santa Cruz/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, AI disclosure and transparency, automated decision-making, and deepfakes. 42 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Santa Cruz local AI rules (and Santa Cruz County)
2 local AI rules specific to Santa Cruz, California or Santa Cruz County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective 2020-06-23 · Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)
First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.
-
In effect Limited protection
Santa Cruz County AI Policy
Santa Cruz County, CA · Effective 2023-09-19 · County of Santa Cruz, AI Policy (Sept. 19, 2023)
Santa Cruz County adopted one of the earliest county-level AI policies in the US, approved in September 2023 and incorporated into the county's procedures manual. It governs how county employees may use AI (including generative AI), with safeguards for sensitive data and human accountability for outputs.
California-level AI rules most relevant to Santa Cruz
54 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in Santa Cruz. Showing the 8 most relevant to Santa Cruz'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
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 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
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
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.
-
Vetoed Unknown
CA SB 1047 (vetoed)
CA · Cal. SB 1047 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — vetoed Sept. 29, 2024
California SB 1047 would have required safety testing, kill-switches, and developer liability for frontier AI models trained above compute/cost thresholds. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 29, 2024 — a landmark veto that reshaped the U.S. frontier-AI policy debate.
-
In effect Moderate protection
CA AG Bonta AI legal advisory
CA · Effective 2025-01-13 · CA DOJ Legal Advisory (Jan. 13, 2025)
California's Attorney General issued a legal advisory making clear that existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, and privacy laws fully apply to AI — including the False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, CCPA, and FEHA. The advisory targets AI-washing, AI-driven discrimination, hallucination-driven misrepresentations, and AI scam impersonation.
Federal AI rules that apply in Santa Cruz, California
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Santa Cruz, 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 Santa Cruz, California
Are there AI laws in Santa Cruz, California?
What federal AI rules apply in Santa Cruz?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Santa Cruz?
How do I report an AI law violation in Santa Cruz?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Santa Cruz?
Is Santa Cruz regulated by California's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Santa Cruz?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Santa Cruz ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.