LexLint

Know the law where your app runs.

Law / Local

The law below the state line

LexLint tracks countries and their states. A small number of city ordinances sit below both, and they are the ones that can make a product unlawful to ship rather than merely risky to operate. Every one we hold is on this page, and nothing else is.

13 Ordinances
12 Places
8 States
One block, and the law changes building by building An illustrative street elevation, drawn to show the shape of the local rung rather than to state the law: the ordinances listed on this page carry the sources and the review dates, and this drawing carries neither. One city block. Five buildings stand on the same sidewalk, each reached by a different local ordinance. An apartment block in Minneapolis, where setting the rent with an algorithm is the offence. Next to it the software vendor's office, where selling that same algorithm is a separate offence, in San Francisco and Berkeley; a bracket joins the two, marking one piece of software and two different offences. A storefront with a camera under its roofline, where face recognition by a private entity is banned in Portland, Oregon. An office tower with a queue of candidates at its door, where screening one with an automated tool means auditing the tool and saying so, in New York City. And a shop with a notice board beside its door, where taking a faceprint means posting the sign and never selling what was taken, also in New York City. Beneath the sidewalk lie the layers the city rung stands on, and they get coarser going down. State law is drawn as four segments, one under each building's own state: Minnesota, California, Oregon, and New York spanning the last two. It is the same for every building standing in it, and different between them. Federal law is a single band under all five, whatever state they stand in. So the block carries one federal layer, four state layers and five city ordinances: the finer the rung, the more it varies. One block, five ordinances The rung below the state line illustrative the same software, two offences Sets the rent with an algorithm Minneapolis Sells that algorithm the vendor, not the user SF, Berkeley Face recognition by a private entity Portland OR Screens candidates with an automated tool New York City Takes faceprints at the entrance New York City state law, one layer per state us/mn us/ca us/or us/ny federal law, one layer for the block us The same under all five, whatever state they stand in.

scroll the street sideways →

One block, three rungs, each finer than the one below it. Federal law is a single band under all five buildings. State law is four bands, one under each building's own state, identical for everything standing in it and different between them. The city rung is five, and it is the only one that can differ between two buildings on the same street. For the first two, it is the same piece of software reached by two different offences. The drawing is illustrative and carries no dates; the rows below it are the record.
Read every row here with its review date. This rung moves faster than the ones under it and in both directions. States have taken up bills that would stop their cities regulating this at all, cities have paused their own ordinances under litigation, and at least one has let its ordinance lapse on a sunset date rather than repeal it. An ordinance that binds today is a claim about today.

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

The ban reaches the software itself

Supplying the product is the offence, whoever ends up running it.

Where Instrument What it reaches As of
Berkeley us/ca/berkeley Prohibition on the Sale or Use of Coordinated Pricing Algorithms
Berkeley Municipal Code ch. 13.63 		It is unlawful to sell, license, or otherwise provide to a Berkeley landlord a coordinated pricing algorithm, a category that includes software using competitor rent or occupancy data, that sets or recommends rents or occupancy levels for a residential unit, and separately unlawful for a landlord to use such an algorithm. Each month of use and each affected unit is a separate violation. The City Attorney or an aggrieved tenant may sue for damages, injunctive relief, or civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 2026-09-03
San Diego us/ca/san-diego Prohibition of Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing Ordinance (Ord. O-21955 N.S.)
San Diego Municipal Code secs. 98.1101 through 98.1104 		It is unlawful for a person to sell, license, or otherwise provide an algorithmic device to a landlord, and separately unlawful for a landlord to use an algorithmic device, defined as software using nonpublic competitor rent or occupancy data, to set rental rates or occupancy levels for residential rental property in San Diego. Each month of a landlord's violation and each affected property is a separate violation. A tenant may sue for injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 2026-09-03
San Francisco us/ca/san-francisco Use and Sale of Algorithmic Devices Prohibited (Rent Ordinance Sec. 37.10C), as amended by Ord. No. 169-25
San Francisco Administrative Code (Rent Ordinance) sec. 37.10C 		It is unlawful to sell, license, or otherwise provide to a San Francisco landlord an algorithmic device, commonly known as revenue management software, that uses nonpublic competitor rent or occupancy data to recommend rents or occupancy levels for a residential unit, and separately unlawful for a landlord to use such a device. Each month of use and each affected unit is a separate violation. A tenant, the City Attorney, or a nonprofit with a primary mission of protecting San Francisco tenants may sue for damages, injunctive relief, or civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 2026-09-04
Santa Monica us/ca/santa-monica Algorithmic Rental Price Fixing (Ord. No. 2817 (CCS))
Santa Monica Municipal Code ch. 4.58 		It is unlawful to sell, license, or otherwise provide to any landlord of a rental housing unit in Santa Monica an algorithmic device that uses nonpublic competitor rent, fee, or occupancy data to set, recommend, or advise on rental rates or occupancy levels, and separately unlawful for a landlord to use such a device. A violation may be asserted as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action, and an aggrieved person or the City may bring a civil action. 2026-09-03
Jersey City us/nj/jersey-city Ordinance 25-057, Preventing Algorithmic Rent-Fixing in the Rental Housing Market
Jersey City Code of Ordinances ch. 218, sec. 12 		It is unlawful for a real estate lessor, agent, or subcontractor renting a residential dwelling unit in Jersey City to subscribe to, contract with, or otherwise exchange anything of value for the services of a service provider that performs a coordinating function, defined as analyzing nonpublic competitor pricing, supply, or lease-term data from two or more landlords to recommend rental prices, lease terms, or occupancy levels. Separately, no service provider may facilitate an agreement among landlords not to compete on rental pricing, fees, or other rental terms. Any person injured by a violation may bring a private civil action, and the Attorney General or a municipal or county attorney may also sue as parens patriae. 2026-09-03
Philadelphia us/pa/philadelphia Bill No. 240823, Anti-Competitive Rental Practices
Philadelphia Code sec. 9-813 		No person may enter an agreement not to compete on rental pricing, fees, or other rental terms for a residential rental unit in Philadelphia, engage in price coordination for such a unit including through the sale, licensure, or provision of a service or product that involves price coordination, facilitate such an agreement between others, or use, subscribe to, or pay for a service that involves price coordination. Any person aggrieved by a violation may bring a civil action for injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees, and the City's Law Department may also sue in the City's name. 2026-09-03
Providence us/ri/providence Prohibition of Algorithmic Rent Setting Devices
Providence Code of Ordinances ch. 13, art. X, secs. 13-69 to 13-73 		No real estate lessor in Providence may engage in price coordination for a residential rental unit, including through the sale, licensure, or provision of a service or product that involves price coordination, and no lessor may subscribe to, contract for, or otherwise provide anything of value for an algorithmic device. An algorithmic device is defined as a product or service that uses an algorithm and nonpublic competitor pricing, occupancy, or lease-term data from two or more lessors, or from public databases, to recommend rental prices, fees, terms, or occupancy levels. A property owner found in violation is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars per day per violation, enforced by the city solicitor working with the Rhode Island Attorney General. 2026-09-03
Seattle us/wa/seattle Ordinance 127241 (Council Bill 121000), Algorithmic Rent Fixing
Seattle Municipal Code ch. 7.34 		It is a violation of SMC Chapter 7.34 for a landlord, in or affecting commerce, to contract with or exchange anything of value for the coordinating services of a service provider, and it is a separate violation for a service provider, in or affecting commerce, to provide coordinating services to two or more landlords. A coordinating service uses algorithms and nonpublic competitor pricing or occupancy data from multiple landlords to recommend rental prices, fees, or terms. SMC 7.34.020 defines 'Landlord' as the owner, lessor, or sublessor of a dwelling unit and defines 'Person' to include a governmental entity. The chapter's only exclusions, in section 7.34.025, are short-term rentals and hotels, so a government agency operating as a residential landlord or as a coordinating-service provider is not carved out. The chapter exempts a landlord's own recordkeeping software, short-term rentals, and hotels, and it exempts publicly available rent estimates that require no contract to obtain. The City Attorney may seek civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation, and any injured person may bring a private civil action. 2026-09-03

The ban reaches a capability

The technique is unlawful inside the boundary, whatever it is built into.

Where Instrument What it reaches As of
Minneapolis us/mn/minneapolis Prohibition on Use of Rent-Setting Algorithms (Ord. No. 2025-010)
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sec. 244.2070 		A landlord (owner or operator) may not use an algorithmic device, defined to include software that uses nonpublic competitor rent or occupancy data, when setting rents or occupancy levels for a dwelling unit in Minneapolis. The section does not separately prohibit selling, licensing, or otherwise supplying such a device. A tenant may bring a civil action to recover compensatory damages and reasonable attorney's fees. 2026-09-03
Hoboken us/nj/hoboken Ord. No. B-781, Algorithmic Rent Fixing in Rental Housing Market Prohibited
Hoboken Code ch. 158, art. II, sec. 158-2 		A landlord renting a residential dwelling unit in Hoboken is prohibited from price fixing using algorithmic pricing, defined as the use of software, algorithms, or data-sharing platforms to collect and analyze nonpublic competitor information from other landlords in order to coordinate, recommend, or implement rental prices, lease terms, or occupancy levels among competing landlords. Violations may be brought by the Division of Housing or a private citizen to Hoboken Municipal Court, and a conviction carries a fine of up to two thousand dollars, community service of up to ninety days, or the penalty prescribed under N.J.S.A. 40:49-5. 2026-09-04
Portland us/or/portland Prohibit the Use of Face Recognition Technologies by Private Entities in Places of Public Accommodation
Portland City Code ch. 34.10 (secs. 34.10.010 to 34.10.060) 		A private entity may not use face recognition technology in a place of public accommodation within Portland, subject to exceptions for legal compliance, an individual's own device unlock, and automatic face detection in social media applications. A person injured by a material violation may recover actual damages or a statutory $1,000 per day of violation, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees and costs. 2026-09-03

The duty changes what you build

Lawful to ship, but only with the audit, the notice, or the sign in it.

Where Instrument What it reaches As of
New York City us/ny/new-york-city Automated Employment Decision Tools Bias Audit and Notice Law
N.Y.C. Admin. Code tit. 20, ch. 5, subch. 25, secs. 20-870 to 20-874 (Local Law 144 of 2021) 		In New York City it is unlawful for an employer or employment agency to use an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless the tool has been the subject of a bias audit conducted within the prior year and a summary of that audit is published on the employer's or agency's website before use. Any employer or agency using such a tool must also notify each covered candidate or employee, at least ten business days before use, that the tool will be used and what job qualifications and characteristics it assesses. 2026-09-03
New York City us/ny/new-york-city Biometric Identifier Information Law
N.Y.C. Admin. Code tit. 22, ch. 12, secs. 22-1201 to 22-1205 (Local Law 3 of 2021) 		A commercial establishment, a place of entertainment, retail store, or food and drink establishment, that collects, retains, converts, stores, or shares customers' biometric identifier information must post a clear and conspicuous sign at every customer entrance disclosing that practice. Separately, it is unlawful for any commercial establishment to sell, lease, trade, share in exchange for anything of value, or otherwise profit from the transaction of biometric identifier information, and the law does not apply to a government agency, employee, or agent. 2026-09-03

13 ordinances, in 12 places across 8 states. A further 1 no longer bind, and are held but not listed here. 1 has been enacted without binding yet, either because commencement is still ahead or because we do not hold the date. Those are the ones to build for now. A city absent from this page has not necessarily been left unresearched: it may be one whose only qualifying ordinance sits in one of the counts above, which are held without being listed. What absence never means is that a city has been cleared.