Law / United States / North Dakota

North Dakota

United States law applies in North Dakota North Dakota is a state of the United States, whose 32 researched instruments are listed on the United States page, not here. The law of North Dakota, described on this page below, applies here too.

7 of 8 named instruments researched to a stage, across four of the six areas of law we track: 6 in force and 1 enacted but not yet in force. As of 19 September 2026.

  1. AI law 3
  2. Privacy law 1
  3. Scraping law 1
  4. Cybersecurity law none researched
  5. Age gating law 2
  6. News aggregation law none researched

in forceenacted but not yet in forceproposedrepealed, withdrawn or blocked

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page.

AI law3 instruments, 3 in force

Research summary (239 words)

North Dakota has no comprehensive AI-transparency, AI-risk, or AI-governance statute. Three 2025 enactments narrowly regulate specific uses of artificial intelligence by any person: House Bill 1167 created N.D. Cent. Code § 16.1-10-04.2, requiring a disclaimer on AI-generated political content that visually or audibly impersonates a human; House Bill 1351 amended N.D. Cent.

Code §§ 12.1-27.1-01 and 12.1-27.1-03.3 to add computer-generated images to the state's non-consensual intimate image ban, reaching AI-generated and altered deepfakes of an identifiable person; and House Bill 1429 amended the harassment and stalking statutes, N.D. Cent.

Code §§ 12.1-17-07 and 12.1-17-07.1, to define 'robot' as an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including artificial intelligence and a remotely piloted aircraft, and to prohibit using one to engage in offensive conduct with no legitimate purpose or to track a person's movements as a form of stalking.

Senate Bill 2280, a 2025 health-insurance prior-authorization reform requiring adverse coverage determinations to be made by a licensed physician or pharmacist, contains no reference to artificial intelligence, an algorithm, or automated decision-making anywhere in its enacted text, so it adds no AI-specific duty despite sometimes being described as a prohibition on AI-only coverage denials. No law restricting a state government agency's own use of AI has been identified.

The legislative assembly maintains an interim Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee for the 2025-26 interim, evidencing active legislative attention to the subject beyond the enacted duties above.

AI prohibited practices

House Bill 1351 (2025), sexually expressive images including AI-generated or altered deepfakes

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-27.1-03.3official North Dakota Century Code, chapter 12.1-27.1 (ndlegis.gov)

In force since 1 August 2025. Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

House Bill 1351 amended the definition of 'sexually expressive image' at N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-27.1-01(13) to cover a real, altered, or computer-generated photograph or visual representation exhibiting a nude or partially denuded human figure or sexual conduct, reaching an AI-generated or AI-altered deepfake alongside a real photograph.

Under the operative prohibition, § 12.1-27.1-03.3, a person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor for surreptitiously creating or willfully possessing such an image of an identifiable individual without that individual's written consent, or for distributing or publishing one with intent to cause emotional harm or humiliation, or after being told by the depicted individual or their parent or guardian that they do not consent; a person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor for acquiring and knowingly distributing such an image created without the subject's consent.

A depicted individual identifiable in the image and harmed by a violation committed for sexual arousal, gratification, humiliation, degradation, or monetary or commercial gain has a civil cause of action for the greater of actual and emotional-distress damages or statutory damages capped at ten thousand dollars per defendant, plus any monetary gain the defendant made, exemplary damages, and attorney fees.

House Bill 1351 passed both chambers with only one dissenting vote, was signed by the governor on April 21, 2025, was filed with the secretary of state April 22, 2025, and carried no emergency clause, so it took effect August 1, 2025 under North Dakota's default effective-date rule.

What it requires

House Bill 1429 (2025), harassment and stalking with a robot

N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-17-07(2)(f), 12.1-17-07.1official North Dakota Century Code, chapter 12.1-17 (ndlegis.gov)

In force. Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

House Bill 1429 amended North Dakota's harassment and stalking statutes to define 'robot' as an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including the associated elements, communication links, and artificial intelligence, a definition that also reaches a remotely piloted aircraft. Under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07(2)(f), a person is guilty of harassment, a class B misdemeanor, for using a robot to engage in offensive conduct with no legitimate purpose.

Under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07.1, unauthorized tracking of a person's movements or location through a robot, or a course of conduct that includes an act conducted with a robot in the person's direct control, can constitute stalking, a class A misdemeanor, or a class C felony where the person has a qualifying prior conviction or violates a protective order with notice.

House Bill 1429 passed both chambers without a dissenting vote, was signed by the governor April 21, 2025, and was filed with the secretary of state April 22, 2025, without an emergency clause, so it took effect under North Dakota's default effective-date rule for legislation filed before August first; the Century Code's codified text carries no history note stating the commencement day itself, so the date is left unset rather than computed from that default rule.

What it requires

AI transparency

House Bill 1167 (2025), AI-generated political content disclosure

N.D. Cent. Code § 16.1-10-04.2official North Dakota Century Code, chapter 16.1-10 (ndlegis.gov)

In force since 1 August 2025. Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Any action taken for a political purpose, including communication or advertising in support of or opposition to a candidate, political committee, or political party, or for promoting passage or defeat of an initiated or referred measure, that contains images, graphics, video, audio, text, or other digital content created in whole or in part with artificial intelligence to visually or audibly impersonate a human, must prominently state the disclaimer 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.'

The duty does not apply to content that solely uses artificial intelligence for text generation, grammar correction, spelling checks, stylistic editing, or otherwise enhancing existing content without creating a new impersonation of a human's likeness or voice.

Artificial intelligence is defined as a machine-based system capable of creating images, graphics, video, audio, text, or other digital content based on human-defined objectives or data patterns, excluding systems explicitly programmed only to assist with grammar, spelling, or word suggestions.

House Bill 1167 passed both chambers without a dissenting vote and was filed with the secretary of state April 11, 2025, without an emergency clause, so it took effect August 1, 2025 under North Dakota's default effective-date rule for legislation filed before that date.

What it requires

Privacy law1 instrument, 1 enacted but not yet in force

Research summary (222 words)

North Dakota has no comprehensive consumer personal-data-protection statute and takes a purely sectoral approach. Its breach notification duty, N.D. Cent.

Code ch. 51-30, requires notice to affected residents without unreasonable delay and, for a breach exceeding 250 individuals, to the Attorney General, but its ten-item personal information definition (a Social Security number, a driver's license or identification card number, a financial account number, a date of birth, a mother's maiden name, medical or health insurance information, an employer-assigned identification number, or a digitized signature) does not include biometric data at all, a confirmed absence rather than an unread gap.

The only North Dakota statute using the term biometric data is a criminal identity-theft prohibition, N.D. Cent. Code Sec. 12.1-23-11, which criminalizes a thief's unauthorized use of it and imposes no duty on a private-sector data handler.

Enforcement of the breach statute runs to the Attorney General under chapter 51-15, North Dakota's unlawful-practices chapter, because a violation of chapter 51-30 is deemed a violation of chapter 51-15; whether that deeming clause also opens chapter 51-15's own private civil-action provision, which arms a claim against a person who acquired moneys or property by means of the unlawful practice, to an individual harmed by a bare notification failure is genuinely unresolved on the text, and no North Dakota case law construing the combination was found.

Breach notification

Notice of Security Breach for Personal Information

N.D. Cent. Code ch. 51-30official North Dakota statute text, North Dakota Century Code chapter 51-30

Commencement not set. Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Any person that owns or licenses computerized data including personal information must disclose a breach of the security system to any affected North Dakota resident, and separately to the Attorney General for a breach exceeding 250 individuals, in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay; the chapter sets no numeric consumer-notification deadline and does not itself define or limit person to a private actor.

Personal information is a name combined with a Social Security number, a driver's or nondriver identification card number, a financial account number, a date of birth, a mother's maiden name, medical or health insurance information, an employer-assigned identification number, or a digitized signature, and excludes publicly available government-records information; biometric data is not among the ten enumerated categories, and this chapter does not reach it at all.

Enforcement runs to the Attorney General, who may use all the powers and remedies of chapter 51-15, North Dakota's unlawful-practices chapter, because a violation of this chapter is deemed a violation of chapter 51-15.

Whether that deeming clause makes chapter 51-15's own private-claim provision, Sec. 51-15-09, available to an individual for a bare notification failure is unresolved: that provision arms a claim specifically against a person who acquired any moneys or property by means of the unlawful practice, language that fits a fraud that took money more naturally than a business's mere failure to notify of someone else's breach, and no North Dakota case law construing this combination was found; secondary characterizations of chapter 51-30 disagree with each other on this point, and that disagreement is not resolved here.

What it requires

Scraping law1 instrument, 1 in force

Research summary (129 words)

North Dakota's computer misuse statute diverges from a bare Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)-style authorization test by splitting the offense in two: a felony 'computer fraud' requiring intent to defraud or deceive, and a separate, broader misdemeanor 'computer crime' that reaches intentional access in excess of authorization or without authorization at all, with no fraud, malice, or deception element required, plus a private civil right of action for the affected computer's owner or lessee.

This is closer to a bare authorization test than Virginia's malicious-intent-or-deceptive-means standard, and no North Dakota case law applying it to an automated public-page collection fact pattern was found. Copyright, text-and-data-mining, database rights, and terms-of-service enforceability are federal and common-law only; North Dakota adds nothing beyond that framework, and robots.txt carries no independent legal weight under North Dakota law.

Computer misuse

Computer fraud and computer crime

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-06.1-08official statute text, North Dakota Century Code chapter 12.1-06.1 (ndlegis.gov)

In force. Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

A person commits computer fraud, a class C felony, by gaining or attempting to gain access to, altering, damaging, modifying, copying, disclosing, taking possession of, or destroying a computer, computer system, or computer network, without authorization, with the intent to defraud, deceive, prevent authorized use of, or control property or services by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

A person separately commits computer crime, a class A misdemeanor, by intentionally and either in excess of authorization given or without authorization gaining or attempting to gain access to, altering, damaging, modifying, copying, disclosing, taking possession of, introducing a computer contaminant into, destroying, or preventing the authorized use of a computer, computer system, computer network, or any software, program, or data within one; this misdemeanor tier carries no fraud, malice, or deception element, so intentional access in excess of or without authorization is itself enough, closer to a bare authorization test than the malicious-intent-or-deceptive-means standard some neighboring states use.

Subsection 3 gives the owner or lessee of the affected computer, system, or network a civil action for damages, restitution, and attorney's fees. The current codification of this section traces to House Bill 1038, chapter 164 of the 1987 North Dakota Session Laws, which amended and reenacted the section and carried no emergency clause.

What it requires

Age gating law2 instruments, 2 in force

Research summary (136 words)

North Dakota enacted a pair of companion adult content age verification laws in 2025, House Bill 1561 and Senate Bill 2380, both effective August 1, 2025. Each adds a near-identical section to chapter 51-07 of the Century Code requiring commercial entities whose websites contain more than one third sexual material harmful to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older, bars retention of identifying information, and is enforced solely through private civil suits.

SB 2380 was introduced as a device, operating system, and app store age-signal mandate, an approach the adult industry's trade group publicly supported, but that mandate was stripped before passage; the enrolled law parallels HB 1561 and expressly shields internet service providers, search engines, cloud providers, and app stores. No social media minor-access, app store, or design code law has been enacted.

Adult content age verification (AV)

HB 1561, age verification for sexual material harmful to minors

N.D. Cent. Code ch. 51-07 (new section enacted by 2025 H.B. 1561)official enrolled bill text

In force since 1 August 2025. Binds private bodies.

What this law does

Commercial entities that knowingly publish or distribute sexual material harmful to minors on a website where more than one third of the content meets that definition must perform reasonable age verification, such as a digitized identification card or a commercial verification system using a government ID or transactional data.

A commercial entity or third party performing verification may not retain identifying information after access is granted, and enforcement is through private civil suits only.

Note and primary source

SB 2380, age verification for sexual material harmful to minors (companion to HB 1561)

N.D. Cent. Code ch. 51-07 (new section enacted by 2025 S.B. 2380)official enrolled bill text

In force since 1 August 2025. Binds private bodies.

What this law does

Substantially identical to companion bill HB 1561: commercial entities that knowingly publish or distribute sexual material harmful to minors on a website where more than one third of the content meets that definition must verify visitors are 18 or older using a digitized identification card or a commercial age verification system relying on government-issued identification, a commercially available age and identity database, or transactional data, and may not retain identifying information after access is granted.

As introduced, the bill would have required device makers, operating systems, and app stores to determine user age and transmit age signals, but the enrolled law dropped that mandate entirely and instead expressly provides that internet service providers, search engines, cloud providers, and application stores are not liable solely for providing access to third-party content. Enforcement is through private civil suits only.

Note and primary source

This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched to a stage. Instruments named in the corpus but not yet researched are counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal advice.