Home › AI Laws › Washington › Vancouver
AI Laws in Vancouver, Washington
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 24 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Vancouver, Washington: 10+ federal protections, 13 Washington state-level rules, and 1 local Vancouver ordinance. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, deepfakes, AI disclosure and transparency, and AI-generated images. 12 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Vancouver local AI rules (and Clark County)
1 local AI rule specific to Vancouver, Washington or Clark County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Vancouver WA Data Center Zoning
Vancouver, WA · Effective 2024-10-01 · Vancouver WA Mun. Code title 20, Data Center Standards (2024)
City of Vancouver WA zoning amendments adding development standards for data centers including setbacks, noise limits, and water/energy disclosure.
Washington-level AI rules most relevant to Vancouver
13 Washington state rules apply to residents and businesses in Vancouver. Showing the 8 most relevant to Vancouver's local picture; 5 more are on the Washington jurisdiction page.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
HB 1170 (WA AI Content Disclosure)
Washington · Effective 2027-02-01 · Wash. E2SHB 1170 (2026); Ch. 167, 2026 Laws
Large AI image, video, and audio generators must embed hard-to-remove provenance data — watermarks or tamper-resistant metadata — in every piece of synthetic content they create. This lets journalists, courts, and the public identify AI-generated media. Applies to services with over 1 million monthly users. Enforced by the Washington Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act. Effective February 1, 2027.
-
In effect Limited protection
SB 5152 (Election Synthetic Media)
Washington · Effective 2023-07-23 · RCW ch. 42.62 (SB 5152, 2023)
Election ads in Washington that use AI-manipulated or synthetic depictions of candidates must disclose it. Candidates harmed by undisclosed synthetic media can sue for damages and injunctive relief.
-
In effect Limited protection
SSB 5886 (WA Digital Likeness Rights)
Washington · Effective 2026-06-11 · Wash. SSB 5886, Ch. 69, 2026 Laws; RCW ch. 63.60 (amending personality rights statute)
Washington updated its personality-rights law so that AI-generated audio or video that realistically mimics someone's face or voice without consent — called a 'forged digital likeness' — is now a civil violation. Victims can seek court injunctions to stop the misuse, and the civil penalty for each infringement is $3,000 plus any actual damages they can prove. The law became effective June 11, 2026.
-
In effect Limited protection
WA AG AI consumer-fraud guidance
WA · Effective 2024-11-19 · RCW 19.86; WA AG Statement (Nov. 19, 2024)
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued guidance confirming that Washington's Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86) applies to AI-enabled deception — fake AI endorsements, AI-generated false reviews, AI voice-clone scams — and announced an AI Task Force to coordinate enforcement.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
HB 2225 (WA Chatbot Safety)
Washington · Effective 2027-01-01 · Wash. HB 2225, Ch. 168, 2026 Laws; RCW 19.86.093
Washington requires AI companion chatbots to clearly tell users they are talking to an AI, not a person. Operators must have crisis protocols — connecting distressed users to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline — and additional safeguards for minors. If a company violates the law, consumers can sue under Washington's Consumer Protection Act and recover actual damages, an injunction, and attorney's fees. Effective 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 Limited protection
Washington HB 1999 (criminalizes AI/fabricated CSAM and nonconsensual fake intimate images)
Washington · Effective 2024-06-06 · Substitute H.B. 1999, Ch. 88, Laws of 2024 (Wash.)
Washington expanded its child sexual abuse material laws to cover fabricated depictions of an identifiable minor, including AI-created images, and created a separate crime for knowingly disclosing a fabricated intimate image of another person when the discloser knows or should know the person did not consent and that disclosure would cause harm. A first disclosure offense is a gross misdemeanor and repeats are a class C felony. Victims may also sue for damages.
-
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.
Federal AI rules that apply in Vancouver, Washington
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Vancouver, 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 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 Vancouver, Washington
Are there AI laws in Vancouver, Washington?
What federal AI rules apply in Vancouver?
Does Washington have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Washington?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Vancouver?
How do I report an AI law violation in Vancouver?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Vancouver?
Is Vancouver regulated by Washington's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Vancouver?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Vancouver ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.