North Dakota
North Dakota AI Laws: Enacted and What's Next (2027)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 5, 2026). · 19 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
As of November 2026, North Dakota has no comprehensive AI statute that we could find in a full-text search of the Century Code. It has targeted laws instead, led by HB 1167 (NDCC 16.1-10-04.2), the 2025 disclaimer law for AI content that impersonates a human in political material. An interim legislative committee has also produced two bill drafts for the 2027 session.
How we searched: The 2,532 chapter files of the North Dakota Century Code were searched for "artificial intelligence", "chatbot", "generative", "machine learning", "deepfake" and "algorithm". Hits for "algorithm" in unrelated chapters, and two grant programs that name AI as a priority (NDCC 54-17-43 and 54-69-03), are not regulation of AI. A law not yet codified would not appear. Quotes from NDCC 16.1-10-04.2, 16.1-10-08, 12.1-17-07 and 12.1-27.2-04.1 also match our stored copy captured July 30, 2026, which is a copy and not a check of current law. We did not compare these sections against session laws passed after the Century Code text we searched.
This page covers North Dakota law as of November 4, 2026. It is general legal information, not legal advice. For the national picture, see our guide to US AI laws.
North Dakota AI Laws at a Glance
| Law | Cite | Subject | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|
| HB 1167 (2025) | NDCC 16.1-10-04.2 | AI disclaimer on political content | August 1, 2025 |
| HB 1429 (2025) | NDCC 12.1-17-07, 12.1-17-07.1 | Harassment and stalking with a robot | August 1, 2025 |
| HB 1351 (2025) | NDCC 12.1-27.1-01(13), 12.1-27.1-03.3 | Sexually expressive images | August 1, 2025 |
| HB 1386 (2025) | NDCC 12.1-27.2-01, 12.1-27.2-04.1 | Computer-generated images of minors | August 1, 2025 |
| SB 2280 (2025) | NDCC ch. 26.1-36.12 | Prior authorization review (no AI wording) | January 1, 2026 |
| HB 1361 (2023) | NDCC 1-01-49 | "Person" excludes AI | Emergency measure; filed April 12, 2023 |
The 2025 effective dates come from the Legislative Council's effective-dates list.
HB 1167: The AI Disclaimer on Political Content
NDCC 16.1-10-04.2 reaches action taken for a political purpose, including communication and advertising for or against a candidate, political committee or party, or on initiated or referred measures or petitions. It applies to content "created in whole or in part with the use of artificial intelligence to visually or audibly impersonate a human", which "prominently must state the following disclaimer: 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.'"
What is excluded. The section "does not apply to content solely using artificial intelligence for text generation, grammar correction, spelling checks, stylistic editing, or enhancing existing content without creating a new impersonation of human likeness or voice."
Definition. "Artificial intelligence" here means "a machine-based system capable of creating images, graphics, videos, audio, text, and other digital content based on human-defined objectives or data patterns." Systems explicitly programmed with rules or tools solely to assist with grammar, spelling or word suggestions, without generating human likeness or voice, are left out.
Penalty. The section names no penalty or enforcer of its own. NDCC 16.1-10-08 makes a violation of the chapter "for which another penalty is not specifically provided" a class A misdemeanor.
AI Is Not a Person: NDCC 1-01-49 (HB 1361)
NDCC 1-01-49, a general definitions section, defines "person" and adds: "The term does not include environmental elements, artificial intelligence, an animal, or an inanimate object." The bill record shows HB 1361 as the 2023 act on that definition. NDCC 15-18.1-01 uses the same wording.
Harassment With a Robot: HB 1429
NDCC 12.1-17-07 defines "robot" as "an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including the associated elements, communication links, and artificial intelligence." The term includes remotely piloted aircraft.
The offense applies to a person who, "with intent to frighten or harass another", "Uses a robot to engage in offensive conduct with no legitimate purpose." Apart from the section's class A cases, the offense is a class B misdemeanor. HB 1429 also amended the stalking statute, NDCC 12.1-17-07.1.
North Dakota Deepfake Laws: HB 1351, HB 1386 and the Failed HB 1320
HB 1351 amended the law on sexually expressive images, a term that covers "real, altered, or computer-generated" images. NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3 sets class A and class B misdemeanors on listed elements, including distribution with intent to cause emotional harm or humiliation, or after notice of non-consent, and gives a depicted, identifiable person who suffers harm a civil action in listed circumstances. Providers of interactive computer services are excluded for content provided by another person.
Under NDCC 12.1-27.2-04.1, knowingly possessing a computer-generated image or other visual representation that "includes sexual conduct by a minor", knowing its character and content, is a class C felony, or a class B felony on listed factors. A "computer-generated image" is one created "through the use of artificial intelligence or other computer program."
HB 1320, a bill on deepfake videos and images, failed in the House 17-69. It is not law. Our guide to North Dakota deepfake laws has the detail.
Health Insurance: SB 2280 and Bulletin 2026-2
SB 2280 is a human-review rule, not an AI law. NDCC 26.1-36.12-03 says: "A prior authorization review organization shall ensure all adverse determinations are made by a licensed physician or licensed pharmacist." The chapter does not contain the words "artificial" or "algorithm". Section 2 of the act also directs a legislative management study, with a report to the 70th Assembly.
The NAIC's status list, dated November 3, 2026, shows Bulletin 2026-2, adopted October 5, 2026, as North Dakota's adoption of its model bulletin on insurers' use of AI. We did not read the bulletin itself. A bulletin of this kind is a regulator's statement of expectations under existing law, not a new law.
State Agencies: The NDIT AI Guideline
North Dakota Information Technology's Artificial Intelligence Guideline, created April 17, 2023 and revised November 17, 2025, applies to executive branch agencies, including the University Systems Office. It also defines AI agents. It is a guideline, not a statute or an executive order.
What We Did Not Find in North Dakota Law
The Century Code search above found no statute on AI in hiring, companion chatbots, frontier models or AI in courts. The Governor's executive order list, which we read by title for 2024 through 2026, shows no AI order.
We did not review the bill lists for the two special sessions shown on the Legislative Branch site. Order titles on the Governor's list tie special sessions to rural health funding and kratom. Web searches found no attorney general enforcement action, rulemaking under an AI statute, or court challenge to these laws.
Attorneys general in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia announced separate suits against OpenAI on October 14, 2026. Official releases from several of those states also name Kansas. North Dakota is not in that list, and web searches found no North Dakota release on it.
AI Note-Takers and Recording in North Dakota
AI meeting assistants raise recording consent questions. Our guide to North Dakota AI meeting recording laws covers them.
Federal Law and North Dakota's AI Statutes
As of November 4, 2026, we found no federal statute in the public laws of the 119th Congress that sets general rules for private AI systems or generally preempts state AI laws. In December 2025, Executive Order 14365 directed federal agencies to challenge or discourage state AI laws the administration views as conflicting with national policy, and called for a federal framework from Congress. The order itself does not declare any state law invalid. See our pages on the AI executive orders and state AI law preemption.
What Changes in North Dakota AI Law in 2027
As of November 4, 2026, we found no AI law scheduled to take effect in North Dakota in 2027; we searched the full text of the Century Code for the AI terms above and the Legislative Council's list of 2025 effective dates.
North Dakota's regular sessions fall in odd-numbered years, so the next is the 70th Legislative Assembly in 2027. These items appeared on the Legislative Branch site in November 2026. None is a bill or a law.
- The interim committee. The Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee was told to gather information on other states' and federal AI law, review federal preemption attempts, and "Consider statutory protections for children against artificial intelligence harm." Its listed 2026 meetings run through October 20.
- Draft 27.0341.01000, companion chatbots. This first draft, dated October 2026, would add a chapter to title 51. It includes disclosure at the start and "at least every three hours during continuous use for adults", a bar on claiming to be human, and a suicide and self-harm protocol.
- Draft 27.0359.01000, regulation and a sandbox. This first draft, also dated October 2026, would create chapter 51-40 with a regulatory sandbox and an AI council. It says "The attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce", with a 60-day cure period and a civil penalty.
More North Dakota Laws
Explore other North Dakota law topics on Recording Law:
- North Dakota Recording Laws
- North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
- North Dakota Background Check Laws
- North Dakota Biometric Privacy Laws
- North Dakota Data Breach Notification Laws
- North Dakota Deepfake Laws
- North Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does North Dakota have an AI law?
North Dakota has targeted laws, including HB 1167 on AI impersonation in political content and a definition excluding AI from the term 'person'. As of November 2026, our full-text search of the Century Code found no comprehensive AI statute.
Does North Dakota require a disclaimer on AI political ads?
HB 1167 requires 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' on political content created in whole or in part with AI to visually or audibly impersonate a human. It does not apply to content solely using AI for text generation, grammar correction, spelling checks, stylistic editing, or enhancing existing content without a new impersonation of human likeness or voice.
Can AI be a legal person in North Dakota?
NDCC 1-01-49 says the term 'person', as defined there, does not include artificial intelligence.
Can a health insurer use AI to deny prior authorization in North Dakota?
SB 2280 does not mention AI. NDCC 26.1-36.12-03 says a prior authorization review organization shall ensure all adverse determinations are made by a licensed physician or licensed pharmacist. The NAIC also lists a 2026 North Dakota bulletin adopting its AI model bulletin for insurers, but a bulletin is not a new law.
Does North Dakota have a chatbot law?
We found no such statute in the Century Code. An interim committee's first draft for 2027, 27.0341.01000, addresses companion chatbots. As of November 4, 2026, it is a draft, not a bill or a law.
Are AI deepfakes illegal in North Dakota?
Some are. NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3 covers real, altered or computer-generated sexually expressive images on its listed elements. NDCC 12.1-27.2-04.1 makes it a felony to knowingly possess a computer-generated image that includes sexual conduct by a minor, knowing its character and content. HB 1320, a bill on deepfakes, failed 17-69.
Updates
Added the AI personhood and robot harassment statutes, the insurance bulletin and the 2027 interim drafts, and stated that SB 2280 does not mention AI.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected this page against the enacted North Dakota Century Code: SB 2280 contains no artificial intelligence provision and instead requires a licensed physician or pharmacist to make prior authorization denials, HB 1167’s disclaimer applies only where AI is used to impersonate a human and exempts text and grammar tools, and the HB 1386 penalty table, HB 1351 offense elements and civil remedies, the SB 2280 decision deadlines and signing date, and the federal child-protection citation were all corrected.
Corrected a blocking error: House Bill 1320, previously described throughout this page as an enacted North Dakota law criminalizing fraudulent deepfakes with specific criminal penalties, actually failed 17-69 on the North Dakota House floor on January 21, 2025, and never became law; every reference to it as enacted law (intro, key takeaways, a dedicated section, the state comparison, and two FAQ answers) has been rewritten to reflect that it failed and that North Dakota has no general fraudulent-deepfake statute as a result. Also fixed a dead NDIT citation and a three-day date error on HB 1167's signing.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 16.1-10-04.2Use of artificial intelligence - Disclosure - Exception - DefinitionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any action taken for a political purpose, including communication and political advertising in support of or opposition to a candidate, political committee, or a political party, or for the purpose of promoting passage or defeat of initiated or referred measures or petitions, containing images, graphics, videos, audio, text, or other digital content created in whole or in part with the use of artificial intelligence to visually or audibly impersonate a human, prominently must state the following disclaimer: "THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE." This section does not apply to content solely using artificial intelligence for text generation, grammar correction, spelling checks, stylistic editing, or enhancing existing content without creating a new impersonation of human likeness or voice. For purposes of this section, "artificial intelligence" means a machine-based system capable of creating images, graphics, videos, audio, text, and other digital content based on human-defined objectives or data patterns.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Also relied on in: Are Deepfakes Illegal in North Dakota? NDCC 12.1-27.1 (2027)
§ 12.1-27.1-03.3Creation, possession, or dissemination of sexually expressive images prohibited - Exception - Civil actionIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, knowing of its character and content, that person: Without written consent from each individual who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image, surreptitiously creates or willfully possesses a sexually expressive image that was surreptitiously created; or Distributes or publishes, electronically or otherwise, a sexually expressive image with the intent to cause emotional harm or humiliation to any individual depicted in the sexually expressive image who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image, or after being given notice by an individual or parent or guardian of the individual who is depicted in a sexually expressive image that the individual, parent, or guardian does not consent to the distribution or publication of the sexually expressive image. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, knowing of its character and content, that person acquires and knowingly distributes any sexually expressive image that was created without the consent of the subject of the image. This section does not authorize any act prohibited by any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Also relied on in: North Dakota Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, North Dakota Pornography Laws (2026): Legal Status and Penalties
§ 12.1-27.2-04.1Possession of certain materials prohibitedIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A person is guilty of a class C felony if, knowing of its character and content, that person knowingly possesses any motion picture, computer-generated image, photograph, or other visual representation that includes sexual conduct by a minor. An individual violating this section is guilty of a class B felony if: The offense involved twenty or more images; The offense involved sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; The offense involved sexual bestiality; The offense involves a prepubescent minor or a minor under twelve years of age; or The individual has previously been convicted of an offense subject to registration under section 12.1-32-15. This section does not impose liability on the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 230, or an internet service provider, cloud computer provider, cybersecurity provider, communication service provider, or information service or telecommunication service network, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153, for any content provided by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Peterka v. State (North Dakota Supreme Court 2015, 864 N.W.2d 745)“…application for postconviction relief, in determining that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2-04.1 unambiguously authorizes multiple prose…”
- State v. Deleon (North Dakota Supreme Court 2021, 965 N.W.2d 419)“…nder N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2- 04.1. As stated in the majority, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2-04.1 provides: A person is guilty of…”
- State v. Syvertson (North Dakota Supreme Court 1999, 597 N.W.2d 652)“…terials depicting sexual conduct by a minor in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2-04.1. Although the jailers and officers eith…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2252Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minorsIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Any person who— knowingly transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if— the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and such visual depiction is of such conduct; knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or through the mails, if— the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and such visual depiction is of such conduct; either— in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,732 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- New York v. Ferber (Supreme Court of the United States 1982, 458 U.S. 747)“…o prohibits dissemination only if the material is obscene. 18 U. S. C. § 2252 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Two States pr…”
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)“…depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U. S. C. § 2252 . The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Ci…”
- Osborne v. Ohio (Supreme Court of the United States 1990, 495 U.S. 103)“…rial for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale. See 18 U. S. C. § 2252 (a) (1982 ed.). But Congress did not…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: xAI Sues Grok User Over Alleged AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material, Alabama Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Victim Rights, Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
United States Code Title 47
§ 230Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive materialIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
The Congress finds the following: The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 853 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs. Com, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 591 F.3d 250)“…cation of information created and developed by others.2 See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (e)(3), & (f)(3); Zeran v. Am. O…”
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Supreme Court of the United States 1997, 521 U.S. 844)“…entitled "Online Family Empowerment." See 110 Stat. 137 , 47 U. S. C. § 230 (1994 ed., Supp. II); 141 Cong. Rec. 2…”
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2008, 528 F.3d 413)“…aims were barred by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C § 230, and Texas common law. For the followin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ninth Circuit: Section 230 Is a Defense, Not Immunity From Suit, Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and BIPA Rules (2026), New York Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections
Sources and References
- HB 1167 (2025) bill overview(ndlegis.gov).gov
- HB 1429 (2025) bill overview(ndlegis.gov).gov
- HB 1351 (2025) bill overview(ndlegis.gov).gov
- HB 1386 (2025) bill overview(ndlegis.gov).gov
- SB 2280 (2025) bill overview(ndlegis.gov).gov
- HB 1361 (2023) bill overview(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Legislative Council: effective dates of 2025 legislation(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NDCC ch. 16.1-10, including 16.1-10-04.2 and 16.1-10-08(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NDCC ch. 1-01, including 1-01-49(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NDCC ch. 12.1-17, including 12.1-17-07(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NDCC ch. 12.1-27.2(ndlegis.gov).gov
- HB 1320 (2025) bill overview, failed in House(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NDCC ch. 26.1-36.12(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NAIC: Implementation of Model Bulletin on Use of AI Systems by Insurers (status as of November 3, 2026)(content.naic.org)
- NDIT Artificial Intelligence Guideline (revised November 17, 2025)(www.ndit.nd.gov).gov
- North Dakota Governor: executive orders list(www.governor.nd.gov).gov
- 70th Legislative Assembly, regular session (2027)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Interim Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Bill draft 27.0341.01000 (first draft, October 2026)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Bill draft 27.0359.01000 (first draft, October 2026)(ndlegis.gov).gov