🔴Illinois HB 3773IN EFFECTUp to ~$70K/violation|🔴Texas TRAIGA (HB 149)IN EFFECTAG-enforced|🔴Utah AI Policy ActIN EFFECT$2,500/violation|⚠️Colorado AI Act (SB 205)Jan 1, 2027AG-enforced|⚠️California SB 942Aug 2, 2026$5K/day|⚠️EU AI Act Art. 50Aug 2, 2026€35M or 7% revenue|⚠️New York RAISE ActJan 1, 2027AG civil penalties|🔴Illinois HB 3773IN EFFECTUp to ~$70K/violation|🔴Texas TRAIGA (HB 149)IN EFFECTAG-enforced|🔴Utah AI Policy ActIN EFFECT$2,500/violation|⚠️Colorado AI Act (SB 205)Jan 1, 2027AG-enforced|⚠️California SB 942Aug 2, 2026$5K/day|⚠️EU AI Act Art. 50Aug 2, 2026€35M or 7% revenue|⚠️New York RAISE ActJan 1, 2027AG civil penalties|
No LawDeadline: N/A
Flag of North Dakota

AI Laws in North Dakota (ND)

No state AI law. Energy sector AI use monitored.

Map showing the location of North Dakota in the United States
North Dakota within the United States

What companies in North Dakota need to know about AI compliance

As of 2026-04-22, North Dakota has not enacted an AI-specific statute; the North Dakota Attorney General office defers to no comprehensive privacy statute; UDAP coverage via N.D.C.C. sec. 51-15-02. Operators across sectors in North Dakota watch federal signals first.

North Dakota's non-legislation on AI means the North Dakota Attorney General office has discretion to apply no comprehensive privacy statute to AI-driven consumer harms as they arise.

The federal and neighboring-state framework that governs your AI operations. Cross-Sector operators in North Dakota operate under a federal-dominant framework anchored by FTC Section 5 (15 USC 45) and NIST AI RMF 1.0, with adjacent authorities Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) / NIST Cybersecurity Framework (15 U.S.C. § 6801-6809; NIST CSF 2.0); General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (for EU users) (EU Regulation 2016/679); Section 508 / ADA Title III (Digital Accessibility) (29 U.S.C. § 794(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12181). FTC Operation AI Comply (Sep 2024) targeted five companies across sectors. The practical risk they have to price in is cross-sector FTC Section 5 exposure and state UDAP liability, and the bellwether signal to monitor is NIST AI RMF 1.0 (Jan 2023) is cited as the federal baseline across 30+ agency guidance documents. Minnesota -- Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 325M) — automated-decision / profiling opt-out sets the de-facto regional floor. North Dakota enacted HB 1361 (2025) clarifying that "person" in state code does not include artificial intelligence, but has adopted no comprehensive AI regulation. Use this as a starting point; sector pages on this site go deeper into industry-specific obligations.

Federal law still governs Cross-Sector AI in North Dakota primarily through FTC Section 5 (15 USC 45) and NIST AI RMF 1.0. Adjacent federal authorities include Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) / NIST Cybersecurity Framework (15 U.S.C. § 6801-6809; NIST CSF 2.0); General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (for EU users) (EU Regulation 2016/679); Section 508 / ADA Title III (Digital Accessibility) (29 U.S.C. § 794(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12181). Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) / NIST Cybersecurity Framework (enforced by Federal Trade Commission; NIST) applies to saas platforms handling personal/financial data via ai must implement nist csf security standards: identify, protect, detect, respond, recover. Penalty exposure: ftc civil penalties up to $100,000/violation; private litigation for data breaches. FTC Operation AI Comply (Sep 2024) targeted five companies across sectors.

Two neighboring states shape regional expectations: Minnesota's Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 325M) — automated-decision / profiling opt-out (penalty Up to $7,500 per violation, deadline In effect since July 31, 2025) and Montana's Consumer Data Privacy Act (AI provisions) (penalty Up to $7,500 per violation). Any North Dakota-headquartered operator touching those markets inherits the stricter of the two.

The enforcement surface for Cross-Sector centres on FTC, CFPB, State Attorneys General, and the statute operators most often under-document is General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (for EU users) (EU Regulation 2016/679) — a gap that surfaces in cross-sector FTC Section 5 exposure disputes. Build an evidence binder covering AI inventory, risk-tier register, incident-response runbook, and board-level AI risk report. Treat NIST AI RMF 1.0 (Jan 2023) is cited as the federal baseline across 30+ agency guidance documents as your leading indicator and escalate when the signal shifts.

With 11-50 employees you can justify a half-time compliance lead and part-time external counsel on retainer. Small-stage Cross-Sector operators should deploy a named compliance lead, formal AI inventory, quarterly bias spot-checks, and a documented escalation path, with semi-annual internal audit with annual external review and ownership resting with a designated AI compliance lead reporting to the CEO. small-business budgets ($50K-$250K) justify a compliance lead plus a GRC tool such as Credo AI, Fairly, or Holistic AI. For Cross-Sector specifically, the sharpest exposure to manage is cross-sector FTC Section 5 exposure and state UDAP liability. Given North Dakota's concentration in energy, agriculture, and government services, oilfield optimization AI and agricultural supply-chain algorithms deserve priority in your AI inventory.

Verified 2026-04-22. See https://www.legis.nd.gov/ for the North Dakota Attorney General public record on North Dakota AI policy.

Even without a North Dakota-specific AI law, federal enforcement from the FTC, EEOC, CFPB, and HHS applies to AI-driven decisions in your state. The in-force federal framework is set out below; the industry pages further down cover sector-specific obligations.

No state AI law — but this federal framework still applies in North Dakota

North Dakota has not enacted its own AI-specific statute. That does not mean AI is unregulated here: the U.S. federal framework below is in force in North Dakota exactly as it is in every other state. Each authority links to its official government source. This is the cross-sector baseline — see the federal AI tracker for bills moving through Congress, and the industry pages below for sector-specific obligations.

Last verified · Jul 5, 2026Sourced from official primary sources (linked below).
FTC Act Section 515 U.S.C. Section 45(a)
Enforced by Federal Trade Commission

Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. AI-generated marketing content that deceives consumers — synthetic testimonials, undisclosed AI-created imagery, deceptive personalization, dark patterns amplified by AI — is actionable under Section 5.

Penalty exposure: Civil penalties up to $51,744 per violation (2024 CPI-adjusted); consumer redress; disgorgement; algorithmic model-deletion remedies as in the Rite Aid and Everalbum orders
EEOC Technical Assistance on AI and Title VII (May 18, 2023)EEOC, Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (May 18, 2023)
Enforced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Applies the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures four-fifths rule to AI hiring tools. Employer is liable for discriminatory AI outputs even when the tool is built and operated by a third-party vendor.

Penalty exposure: Title VII remedies: back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages up to $300K per claimant (employer-size tiered caps), injunctive relief, attorney fees
Enforced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

AI hiring and performance monitoring systems must accommodate individuals with disabilities. Must not eliminate essential job functions or require unnecessary testing.

Penalty exposure: Compensatory and punitive damages; back pay; injunctive relief; up to $100,000 in civil penalties
Enforced by Federal Trade Commission; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

AI credit and background check systems used in rental decisions must be transparent and non-discriminatory.

Penalty exposure: Actual damages or $100–$1,000 per violation; Class action liability
NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0NIST AI 100-1 (Jan 26, 2023)
Enforced by National Institute of Standards and Technology

Voluntary framework organizing AI risk into Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions. A manufacturing-focused profile is under development. Framework is referenced in federal-contractor expectations and in agency best-practice guidance.

Penalty exposure: Not directly enforceable; cited in regulatory actions, contract requirements, and standard-of-care determinations in tort litigation
This is a cross-sector summary, not an exhaustive list. Federal coverage evolves — always confirm current requirements against each official source above and the federal AI bill tracker.
✓ Free · No email · 2 minutes
Does your North Dakota business comply with AI laws?
Answer 4 quick questions → get your personalized risk score + action list.
Check My Risk — Free →
● Live

Recent AI law developments in North Dakota

Updated July 11, 2026

Recent news coverage of AI regulation and policy in North Dakota. Headlines are aggregated automatically; follow each link for the full story.

AI Law NewsFlag of North Dakota
The Bismarck Tribune
June 29, 2026
North Dakota Legislative leadership announces AI and datacenter committee

Coverage from The Bismarck Tribune on AI legislation and regulation relevant to North Dakota.

The Bismarck Tribune·
AI Law NewsFlag of North Dakota
North Dakota Monitor
June 25, 2026
North Dakota lawmakers zero in on AI, data centers

Coverage from North Dakota Monitor on AI legislation and regulation relevant to North Dakota.

North Dakota Monitor·
AI Law NewsFlag of North Dakota
Valley News Live
June 25, 2026
North Dakota lawmakers establishing AI and data center committee

Coverage from Valley News Live on AI legislation and regulation relevant to North Dakota.

Valley News Live·
Live · Legislature

AI bills moving through the North Dakota legislature

Updated July 12, 2026

AI-related bills currently tracked in the North Dakota legislature, updated automatically from Open States and the state legislature's own official record. Follow each link for the official bill text, sponsors, and status history.

HB 1167Relating to artificial intelligence disclosure statements.

AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 16.1-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to artificial intelligence disclosure statements.

Governor signed

Open States·
HB 1320Relating to prohibiting deepfake videos and images; and to provide a penalty.

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12.1-31 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting deepfake videos and images; and to provide a penalty.

Failed in House

Open States·

Applicable laws

No AI-specific lawN/A

North Dakota AI compliance by industry

Healthcare
Finance & Banking
HR & Recruiting
Tech & SaaS
Marketing & Advertising
Insurance
Education
Legal Services
Real Estate
Retail & E-Commerce
Manufacturing
Transportation
Media & Entertainment
Nonprofit
Government Contractor

AI compliance by company size

Jump to top-risk sectors for your company size

Startups (1-10)
🏥 Healthcare
Small (11-50)
🏦 Finance
Mid-Market (51-500)
👥 HR & Recruiting
Enterprise (500+)
💻 Tech & SaaS

Quick resources for North Dakota

✅ Compliance checklist
💰 Fines & penalties
📋 Requirements
📖 Compliance guide
⏰ Deadlines

Industry risk levels in North Dakota

Risk by sector
🏥 HealthcareVery High
🏦 Finance & BankingVery High
💻 Tech & SaaSHigh
🛒 Retail & E-CommerceMedium-High
👔 HR & RecruitingVery High
⚖️ Legal ServicesHigh
📢 Marketing & AdvertisingMedium
🎓 EducationMedium-High
Risk levels based on North Dakota AI law requirements and industry-specific regulations

Do you also serve EU customers?

The EU AI Act applies to any company serving EU customers, even if you're based in North Dakota. Penalties reach €35M or 7% of global revenue. Deadline: August 2, 2026.

Check EU compliance →·GermanyFranceIreland

Other states with active AI laws

California
$5,000 per violation; each day is a discrete violation
Colorado
AG-enforced (Colorado Consumer Protection Act); up to ~$20,000 per violation
Illinois
IDHR/IHRC make-whole relief + tiered civil penalties up to ~$16,000–$70,000 per act per aggrieved party
Indiana
N/A (state-government governance)
Maine
Enforced as a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act
Minnesota
Up to $7,500 per violation
Check your state's risk →

Related resources

Free AssessmentHealthcare AI LawsHR & Hiring AI LawsEU AI Act
Editorial standards

Anchored to the primary government source (statute, bill text, or agency rule) and verified directly against it · Last verified Apr 22, 2026. See our methodology.

Primary sources · North Dakota