Home › AI Laws › Ohio › Washington Township
AI Laws in Washington Township, Ohio
As of 2026-07-01, AI Laws USA tracks 14 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Washington Township, Ohio: 10+ federal protections, 3 Ohio state-level rules, and 1 local Washington Township ordinance. Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, consumer protection, data-center siting and energy, and automated decision-making. 4 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Washington Township local AI rules (and Montgomery County)
1 local AI rule specific to Washington Township, Ohio or Montgomery County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Washington Township OH data center moratorium (360-day, Apr 2026)
Washington Township, OH · Effective 2026-04-21 · Washington Township (Montgomery Co.) Board of Trustees resolution (April 21, 2026)
Washington Township (Montgomery County), in the Dayton metro area, enacted a 360-day moratorium on the issuance and processing of zoning permits and approvals for new data center uses on April 21, 2026. The trustees described the action as preemptive — no developer had yet applied — and intended to allow time to study impacts on utilities, noise, aesthetics, safety, and infrastructure, and decide whether to limit, prohibit, or regulate data centers with permanent zoning standards.
Ohio-level AI rules
3 Ohio state rules apply to residents and businesses in Washington Township. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Moderate protection
OH HB 7 (2022 AV)
Ohio · Effective 2022-09-13 · Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4501.01, 4511.01, 4511.991
Ohio's 2022 statute codified what had been executive-order policy under DriveOhio: fully driverless AV operation is allowed, the registered owner is the legal operator for traffic enforcement, AV networks must carry $5 million in insurance, and the state must maintain an AV testing program (the Smart Mobility / TRC framework).
-
In effect Limited protection
OH PDD law (SB 156)
Ohio · Effective 2019-04-04 · Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.513
Ohio authorized sidewalk delivery robots up to 200 lb (one of the highest weight caps in the country) and up to 10 mph, with $100,000 in liability insurance. Local governments retain authority to set additional operating rules.
-
In effect Limited protection
Ohio AI Fabricated Sexual Images Law
Ohio · Effective 2025-09-30 · ORC § 2917.211 (amended by 2025 Ohio HB 96); ORC § 2307.66
Ohio amended its nonconsensual-image law in September 2025 to expressly cover AI-generated and digitally fabricated sexual images — prohibiting both distributing AND creating them without the depicted person's consent. First offenses are fourth-degree felonies, escalating for repeat offenders. Victims may sue for compensatory and punitive damages plus attorney's fees.
Federal AI rules that apply in Washington Township, Ohio
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Washington Township, Ohio. 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
Banner 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 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.
-
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., 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
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 Washington Township, Ohio
Are there AI laws in Washington Township, Ohio?
What federal AI rules apply in Washington Township?
Does Ohio have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Ohio?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Washington Township?
How do I report an AI law violation in Washington Township?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Washington Township?
Is Washington Township regulated by Ohio's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Washington Township?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Washington Township ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.