Home › AI Laws › Washington › Vancouver Public Schools, WA
AI Laws in Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington
As of 2026-07-26, AI Laws USA tracks 30 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington: 10+ federal protections, 19 Washington state-level rules, and 1 local Vancouver Public Schools, WA ordinance. Coverage is strongest on consumer data privacy, automated decision-making, government use of AI, and consumer protection. 15 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Vancouver Public Schools, WA local AI rules
1 local AI rule specific to Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington.
-
In effect Limited protection
Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo
Vancouver Public Schools, WA · Effective 2024-08-01 · Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Monitoring Contract
Vancouver Public Schools (WA) signed a $328,036 three-year Gaggle Safety Management contract to run AI monitoring of 24,000+ students' typing on district devices at school and at home to flag violence, self-harm, and safety concerns.
Washington-level AI rules most relevant to Vancouver Public Schools, WA
19 Washington state rules apply to residents and businesses in Vancouver Public Schools, WA. Showing the 8 most relevant to Vancouver Public Schools, WA's local picture; 11 more are on the Washington jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Limited protection
Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) · Effective 2024-07-01 · Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools
Washington's state superintendent issued 'Human-AI-Human' guidance for K-12 schools covering AI foundations, classroom implementation, ethical considerations, policy suggestions, and privacy compliance.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Washington SHB 1672 (employee monitoring notice, ADS restrictions, emotion AI ban)
Washington · Effective 2026-07-01 · Wash. SHB 1672 (2025 Session), effective July 1, 2026
Washington SHB 1672, effective July 1, 2026, is one of the most comprehensive U.S. employer monitoring laws. Employers must give employees 15 calendar days' written notice before any monitoring begins or before any change to monitoring. Notice must specify what is monitored, the method used, the purpose, who can access the data, and how long it is retained. The law prohibits off-duty monitoring, monitoring in private spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms), and monitoring personal vehicles. It restricts AI-based emotion recognition, gait recognition, and facial recognition in employment-related decisions. Employers must conduct impact assessments before deploying automated decision systems and must provide human oversight of ADS-driven performance evaluations. Employees have a private right of action with damages of at least $500 per violation plus attorney fees. Civil penalties may reach $10,000 per violation. The law applies to any employer with one or more Washington employees, including remote employees of out-of-state companies.
-
In effect Limited protection
Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Gen
Washington · Effective 2023-08-08 · Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Washington State Government
WaTech's interim guidelines establish principles and dos-and-don'ts for state employees using generative AI, covering fact-checking, bias reduction, attribution, and protection of sensitive or confidential data.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Moderate protection
Washington HB 2225 (AI chatbot disclosure, minor protections, crisis protocols)
Washington · Effective 2027-01-01 · Washington HB 2225 (2026), effective January 1, 2027
Washington's AI Companion Chatbot Safety Act (HB 2225), signed March 24, 2026, requires operators of AI companion chatbots to clearly disclose to all users that they are interacting with AI, not a human. The disclosure must be repeated every three hours for adult users and every one hour for minor users. Operators must implement suicide and self-harm crisis protocols for all users, protect minors from manipulative engagement mechanics, and restrict access to adult content. The law includes a private right of action, allowing affected individuals to sue operators. It takes effect January 1, 2027.
-
In effect Limited protection
My Health My Data Act
Washington · Effective 2024-03-31 · RCW ch. 19.373
A sweeping health-data privacy law covering 'consumer health data' far beyond HIPAA — including biometric data, health inferences drawn by algorithms, and reproductive health information. Companies need consent to collect or share such data, must honor deletion requests, and cannot geofence health facilities. Consumers can sue under Washington's Consumer Protection Act.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Plateau Peoples TK/BC Labels
Plateau Peoples' Web Portal (Multi-Tribal) · Effective 2015-01-01 · Plateau Peoples' Web Portal — multi-tribal TK/BC Labels initiative
Six Plateau tribes — Colville, Umatilla, Warm Springs, Yakama, Spokane, and Coeur d'Alene — jointly implement Local Contexts Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels on digital cultural-heritage collections. A working Indigenous data sovereignty mechanism applicable to AI training data: labels travel with the data and assert community-defined access and use rules.
-
In effect Limited protection
WA DOI AI Bulletin
WA · Effective 2024-04-22 · Washington OIC Technical Assistance Advisory 2024-02 (2024-04-22)
The WA Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in WA 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.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
Washington HB 1170 (AI content watermarking & provenance metadata)
Washington · Effective 2027-02-01 · Washington HB 1170 (2026), effective February 1, 2027
Washington's HB 1170, signed March 24, 2026, requires covered AI providers — those with more than one million monthly active users — to embed metadata or watermarks (provenance data) in AI-generated or materially altered images, video, and audio content. The law is enforced by the Washington Attorney General under the state's Consumer Protection Act. It takes effect February 1, 2027. Strength is rated 'limited' because the one-million-user threshold exempts many smaller AI providers, and enforcement relies on the AG rather than providing a direct private right of action.
Federal AI rules that apply in Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington. 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 Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington
Are there AI laws in Vancouver Public Schools, WA, Washington?
What federal AI rules apply in Vancouver Public Schools, WA?
Does Washington have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Washington?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Vancouver Public Schools, WA?
How do I report an AI law violation in Vancouver Public Schools, WA?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Vancouver Public Schools, WA?
Is Vancouver Public Schools, WA regulated by Washington's consumer privacy act?
Compliance guides for Washington businesses
Plain-English guides to the Washington AI & data laws companies most often need to comply with:
Have we missed an AI rule in Vancouver Public Schools, WA?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Vancouver Public Schools, WA ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.