Home › AI Laws › New York › Town of Clay
AI Laws in Town of Clay, New York
As of 2026-07-26, AI Laws USA tracks 49 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Town of Clay, New York: 10+ federal protections, 38 New York state-level rules, and 1 local Town of Clay ordinance. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, government use of AI, deepfakes, and consumer protection. 28 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Town of Clay local AI rules
1 local AI rule specific to Town of Clay, New York.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Ene
Town of Clay · Enacted 2026-06-30 · Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Energy Storage System Law
The Clay Town Board approved a one-year moratorium halting applications for large-scale data centers, AI computing facilities, and cryptocurrency operations while the town develops regulations, alongside a new Battery Energy Storage System Law.
New York-level AI rules most relevant to Town of Clay
38 New York state rules apply to residents and businesses in Town of Clay. Showing the 8 most relevant to Town of Clay's local picture; 30 more are on the New York jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Limited protection
NY AV testing pilot
New York · Effective 2017-04-20 · Part FF, Ch. 55, Laws of 2017 (uncodified session law)
New York requires AV operators to obtain DMV pilot-program authorization, maintain a licensed human safety driver behind the wheel, post a $5 million insurance bond, and coordinate with State Police for each test deployment. New York remains one of the most restrictive states — fully driverless operation is not authorized as of 2026.
-
In effect Moderate protection
New York LOADinG Act (oversight of state-agency automated decisions)
New York · Effective 2024-12-21 · N.Y. State Technology Law (LOADinG Act); L. 2024, ch. 674 (S7543B)
State agencies in New York must publicly list the automated decision-making tools they use, run and publish impact assessments on them, and keep meaningful human review for tools that hand out public benefits or affect people's rights, safety, or welfare. Agencies also cannot use automated systems to make internal employment decisions that would lay off or displace staff.
-
In effect Limited protection
New York A433 (state agencies must list AI employment tools)
New York · Effective 2025-07-01 · N.Y. State Technology Law / Civil Service Law; L. 2025, ch. 96 (A433)
Any New York State agency that uses an automated tool to help make employment decisions must publicly list those tools, and the state's IT office must keep a public inventory of state-agency AI systems that affect the public. The law also protects state workers' existing collective-bargaining rights and bars using AI to displace them.
-
In effect Limited protection
New York S8831 (shields public employees from AI displacement)
New York · Effective 2026-02-13 · N.Y. S8831 (2025)
This law amends New York's education, state technology, and civil service laws to protect public employees from harms caused by artificial intelligence systems. It guards against AI being used in ways that would impair workers' collective-bargaining rights, lead to their discharge or displacement, transfer their job duties to an AI system, or cut their hours, wages, or benefits.
-
In effect Limited protection
Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-
New York · Effective 2024-01-08 · Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-P24-001)
New York's Office of Information Technology Services set enterprise rules requiring state agencies to conduct NIST-based risk assessments, maintain human oversight of AI decisions affecting the public, and disclose AI chatbots as non-human.
-
In effect Limited protection
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy
State University of New York (SUNY) · Effective 2026-04-30 · SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy
SUNY's Board of Trustees approved a systemwide AI policy requiring all 64 campuses to adopt AI governance, bias evaluation, data-privacy safeguards, and heightened oversight of high-risk systems affecting students by December 31, 2026.
-
In effect Limited protection
SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw
State University of New York (SUNY) · Effective 2024-05-09 · SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemwide AI chatbot program)
New York and SUNY launched a systemwide generative-AI education program described as the largest LLM-enabled education system, providing customized tutoring while pledging to protect privacy and academic integrity.
-
Proposed / pending Limited protection
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)
The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.
Federal AI rules that apply in Town of Clay, New York
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Town of Clay, New York. 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 Town of Clay, New York
Are there AI laws in Town of Clay, New York?
What federal AI rules apply in Town of Clay?
Does New York have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in New York?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Town of Clay?
How do I report an AI law violation in Town of Clay?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Town of Clay?
Is Town of Clay regulated by New York's consumer privacy act?
Compliance guides for New York businesses
Plain-English guides to the New York AI & data laws companies most often need to comply with:
Have we missed an AI rule in Town of Clay?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Town of Clay ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.