Texas AI Law: TRAIGA (HB 149) Explained (2027)

As of November 2026, Texas has enacted a broad AI law: the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, known as TRAIGA (HB 149, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code chs. 551-554), in force since January 1, 2026. It rests on intent-based prohibitions rather than risk-management duties, and only the Attorney General can enforce it. Narrower 2025 laws cover health care AI (SB 1188, SB 815) and government AI (SB 1964, HB 2818, HB 3512).

Status as of November 4, 2026: TRAIGA is in force. We found no TRAIGA enforcement action in the Attorney General's news releases, and the office's October 2026 suit against OpenAI pleads the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the SCOPE Act, not TRAIGA. The Legislature did not meet in regular session in 2026. Its next regular session opens January 12, 2027.

This page covers Texas state law on artificial intelligence: TRAIGA, the health care and government AI statutes, and how the Attorney General has acted against AI companies. Deepfakes and AI meeting recorders get short summaries here and have their own pages. For other states and the national picture, see our guide to state and federal AI laws.

Texas AI Laws by Bill Number and Effective Date

The Texas Legislature passed these AI laws in its 2025 regular session (the 89th Legislature). The dates below come from each bill's Texas Legislature Online history and enrolled text.

Several AI bills did not become law. HB 366 in particular still appears beside the enacted bills in some roundups.

• HB 366 (altered media in political ads): passed the House. Its last action is "Received from the House" in the Senate on April 30, 2025.
• HB 1709 (an earlier, broader AI bill): last action was referral to committee on March 14, 2025.
• HB 3808 (AI advisory council and learning laboratory): referred to committee on March 26, 2025, with no further action.
• SB 1411 and SB 1822 (AI algorithms in health coverage and utilization review): neither was enacted. SB 815 is the utilization review bill that passed.
• SB 2567 (Deceptive Trade Practices Act and undisclosed AI or algorithmic pricing): last action was referral to committee on April 3, 2025.

TRAIGA (HB 149): What Texas's AI Law Requires

TRAIGA is a set of prohibitions tied to what a developer or deployer intended, plus a narrow disclosure duty. Its text does not require private companies to run risk assessments or publish impact statements.

Colorado is the only state we found with a cross-sector statute on automated decisions, and it starts January 1, 2027. Texas's law is broad but is not that kind of regime.

Who TRAIGA Covers

Under section 551.002, the subtitle "applies only to a person who: (1) promotes, advertises, or conducts business in this state; (2) produces a product or service used by residents of this state; or (3) develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system in this state."

Section 551.001(1) defines an AI system as "any machine-based system that, for any explicit or implicit objective, infers from the inputs the system receives how to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations, that can influence physical or virtual environments."

A "consumer" is a Texas resident "acting only in an individual or household context." The term excludes "an individual acting in a commercial or employment context" (section 551.001(2)).

Section 552.003 addresses local rules: the chapter "supersedes and preempts any ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation adopted by a political subdivision regarding the use of artificial intelligence systems."

What TRAIGA Prohibits

Most bans carry a mental-state or purpose requirement, and two are aimed at government.

Section 552.054(c) also says: "A violation of Section 503.001 is a violation of this section." Section 503.001 is the state's biometric identifier statute, and its rules bind any "person," not only government. On its face, then, a private company's violation of section 503.001 is also a violation of section 552.054. The text does not say how the two enforcement schemes fit together.

"Governmental entity" in section 552.001(3) excludes hospital districts created under listed Texas law and institutions of higher education.

The Intent Standard and Disparate Impact

Section 552.056(c) says: "For purposes of this section, a disparate impact is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate an intent to discriminate." That limit belongs to section 552.056. The separate Labor Code rule for employment practices is covered in the hiring section below.

Section 552.056 has two carve-outs. It does not apply to an insurance entity providing insurance services if the entity is subject to statutes on unfair discrimination or unfair or deceptive insurance practices. A federally insured financial institution is considered in compliance if it complies with all federal and state banking laws and regulations.

Section 552.002 adds that the chapter may not be construed to impose a requirement that adversely affects anyone's rights or freedoms, including free speech.

TRAIGA's AI Disclosure Rule

Section 552.051(b) requires a governmental agency that makes available an AI system intended to interact with consumers to "disclose to each consumer, before or at the time of interaction, that the consumer is interacting with an artificial intelligence system."

The disclosure must be clear, conspicuous and in plain language, may not use a dark pattern, and may be made through a hyperlink. It is required "regardless of whether it would be obvious to a reasonable consumer" (section 552.051(c)-(e)).

The only other disclosure duty in this section is for health care, covered below. Section 552.051 does not put a general chatbot disclosure duty on private businesses. Other Texas laws can still reach private AI companies: the Attorney General has used the Deceptive Trade Practices Act against them, as described below.

Biometric Changes in HB 149

HB 149 also amended Business and Commerce Code section 503.001, the state's biometric identifier statute. A person has not been informed of and consented to capture of a biometric identifier "based solely on the existence of an image or other media" online or in another public source, unless the individual made that image or media publicly available.

The amendment also exempts "the training, processing, or storage of biometric identifiers involved in developing, training, evaluating, disseminating, or otherwise offering artificial intelligence models or systems, unless a system is used or deployed for the purpose of uniquely identifying a specific individual." If an identifier captured for training is later used for a non-exempt commercial purpose, section 503.001's possession, destruction and penalty rules apply. A further exemption covers AI used for security, fraud prevention and similar purposes.

Section 552.054(c), described above, also makes a violation of section 503.001 a violation of TRAIGA's biometric section.

TRAIGA Enforcement: Attorney General, 60-Day Cure and Penalties

The Attorney General "has exclusive authority to enforce this chapter," with one exception for licensing agencies (section 552.101(a)). Section 552.101(b) says the chapter "does not provide a basis for, and is not subject to, a private right of action for a violation of this chapter or any other law."

Enforcement runs in these steps:

1. Complaint. The Attorney General must keep an online complaint mechanism (section 552.102). The office's AI complaint form is live.
2. Investigation. On a complaint through that mechanism, the Attorney General may issue a civil investigative demand. It can seek high-level descriptions of the system's purpose, inputs, outputs and post-deployment monitoring, plus the type of training data, performance metrics and known limitations (section 552.103).
3. Notice. If the Attorney General determines a violation has occurred or is occurring, the office must give written notice identifying the provisions at issue (section 552.104(a)).
4. Cure. The Attorney General may not sue before the 60th day after notice. The office may not sue at all if, within that time, the person cures and gives a written statement that it cured, documented how, and changed internal policies to reasonably prevent further violation (section 552.104(b)).
5. Suit. A person who violates the chapter and does not cure is liable for civil penalties. The Attorney General may also seek an injunction, attorney's fees, and court costs or investigative expenses (section 552.105(a)-(b)).

TRAIGA Penalties

The statute sets no amount between $12,000 and $80,000. The Attorney General may not sue for a penalty over a system that has not been deployed (section 552.105(f)).

A state agency may separately sanction a person it licenses, registers or certifies, but only for a violation of Subchapter B, only after a violation finding under section 552.105, and only if the Attorney General recommends it. Sanctions may include suspension, probation or revocation, and a monetary penalty up to $100,000 (section 552.106).

TRAIGA Defenses and the NIST Provision

Section 552.105(c) creates "a rebuttable presumption that a person used reasonable care as required under this chapter." A defendant who believes in good faith that it did not violate the chapter may seek an expedited hearing or a declaratory judgment (section 552.105(d)).

Under section 552.105(e), a defendant may not be found liable if another person uses the system in a prohibited manner. A defendant also may not be found liable if it discovers a violation through any of these routes:

• feedback from a developer, deployer or other person who believes a violation has occurred
• testing, "including adversarial testing or red-team testing"
• following guidelines set by applicable state agencies
• "if the defendant substantially complies with the most recent version of the 'Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile' published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems, an internal review process"

In that last item, compliance with the framework is a condition on the internal-review route to discovering a violation. The text does not make following the framework a freestanding defense.

TRAIGA Regulatory Sandbox and Texas Artificial Intelligence Council

The Sandbox (Chapter 553)

The Department of Information Resources (DIR), "in consultation with the council," must create a sandbox that lets a person test AI "without obtaining a license, registration, or other regulatory authorization" (section 553.051(a)). A participant needs approval from DIR and any applicable agency (section 553.052(a)).

Testing may run "not more than 36 months," and DIR may extend it for good cause (section 553.053). Participants report quarterly, and DIR reports to the Legislature each year (sections 553.102-.103).

The sandbox does not switch off TRAIGA's bans. Under section 553.051(e), "the requirements of Subchapter B, Chapter 552, may not be waived," and the Attorney General or an agency may act against a participant who violates that subchapter.

Section 553.052(b) says DIR "by rule shall prescribe the application form." As of November 4, 2026, we did not find an adopted rule, application form or participant for this sandbox, and DIR's chapter 219 adoption in the March 13, 2026 Texas Register does not address it. This is a different program from the public-sector sandbox under SB 1964, described below.

The Texas Artificial Intelligence Council (Chapter 554)

The council has seven public members: three appointed by the governor, two by the lieutenant governor and two by the speaker, for staggered four-year terms (section 554.002). It is administratively attached to DIR.

Its remit is advisory and broader than the sandbox. It is to make recommendations to the Legislature and agencies, identify laws that impede AI innovation, evaluate regulatory capture, study the regulatory environment, receive DIR's sandbox reports and recommend sandbox improvements (section 554.001(a)). It may recommend that DIR remove a participant (section 553.101(b)), and it must run training for state agencies and local governments (section 554.102).

It "may not: (1) adopt rules or promulgate guidance that is binding for any entity; (2) interfere with or override the operation of a state agency; or (3) perform a duty or exercise a power not granted by this chapter" (section 554.103).

As of November 4, 2026, we did not find an official announcement of this council's appointments or of a meeting. It is a different body from the Public Sector Artificial Intelligence Systems Advisory Board created by SB 1964, whose eight members the governor appointed on November 6, 2025.

Texas Health Care AI: SB 1188, SB 815 and TRAIGA Section 552.051(f)

Three separate rules apply: one to practitioners using diagnostic AI, one to providers of care in which AI is used, and one to utilization review agents.

SB 1188: Practitioners Using AI for Diagnosis

SB 1188 is mainly an electronic health records law, and AI is one section of it. Under Health & Safety Code section 183.005(a), a practitioner may use AI for diagnostic purposes, including recommendations on a diagnosis or course of treatment based on a patient's medical record, if three conditions are met:

• the practitioner acts within the scope of their license, certification or other authorization
• the particular use is not otherwise restricted or prohibited by state or federal law
• the practitioner reviews all records created with AI consistently with Texas Medical Board medical records standards

Disclosure is a separate duty. Section 183.005(b) says the practitioner "must disclose the practitioner's use of that technology to the practitioner's patients." The statute does not set a time for the disclosure or say whether it must be verbal or written.

Other parts of SB 1188 touch AI and data. Section 183.007 requires any algorithm or decision assistance tool in an electronic health record that assists treatment decisions to include the individual's recorded biological sex. Section 183.002 requires covered entities to ensure records containing patient information are "physically maintained in the United States or a territory of the United States," including records held by cloud providers.

The Attorney General may seek an injunction and civil penalties capped at $5,000 per negligent violation in a single year, $25,000 per knowing or intentional violation in a single year, and $250,000 per violation where a covered entity knowingly or intentionally used protected health information for financial gain (section 183.011). A regulatory agency may discipline a covered entity that violates the chapter three or more times (section 183.010).

TRAIGA Section 552.051(f): AI in Care

If an AI system "is used in relation to health care service or treatment," the provider must give the disclosure to the recipient or their personal representative "not later than the date the service or treatment is first provided." In an emergency, the provider must do so "as soon as reasonably possible."

This rule is not limited to diagnostic use, and it carries the timing rule that SB 1188 lacks.

SB 815: AI in Utilization Review and Insurance Denials

Insurance Code section 4201.156(a) says: "A utilization review agent may not use an automated decision system to make, wholly or partly, an adverse determination." An adverse determination is a utilization review agent's finding that services are not medically necessary or appropriate, or are experimental or investigational.

An "automated decision system" is an algorithm, including one incorporating AI, "that uses data-based analytics to make, suggest, or recommend certain determinations, decisions, judgments, or conclusions." The commissioner of insurance may audit and inspect a utilization review agent's use of such a system at any time.

The ban has a limit: it "does not prohibit the use of an algorithm, artificial intelligence system, or automated decision system for administrative support or fraud-detection functions" (section 4201.156(c)). It applies only to utilization review for a plan delivered, issued for delivery or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.

Government AI in Texas: SB 1964, HB 2818, HB 3512 and 1 TAC Chapter 219

These laws bind state agencies, local governments and the vendors that work with them. SB 1964 and HB 2818 each added a "Subchapter S" to Government Code chapter 2054 with overlapping section numbers, so we cite them as enrolled; the codified numbering may differ.

SB 1964: Heightened Scrutiny Systems and the Code of Ethics

SB 1964 defines a heightened scrutiny AI system as one "specifically intended to autonomously make, or be a controlling factor in making, a consequential decision." A consequential decision has "a material legal or similarly significant effect on the provision, denial, or conditions of a person's access to a government service." Systems intended for narrow procedural tasks, preparatory tasks and similar uses are excluded.

The act requires the following:

• Code of ethics and standards. DIR must adopt both by rule, aligned with or consistent with NIST's AI RMF 1.0, and state agencies and local governments must adopt them (sections 2054.702-.703).
• Inventories. State agencies inventory their AI systems in their information resources reviews, and local governments review their heightened scrutiny systems (Gov't Code section 2054.0965).
• Impact assessments. State agencies and their vendors assess heightened scrutiny systems for risks of unlawful harm, limitations and information governance. The assessments are confidential (section 2054.708).
• Public disclosure. State agencies disclose interaction with public-facing AI, unless "a reasonable person would know the person is interacting with an artificial intelligence system" (section 2054.707). Agencies and local governments must also post a standardized notice for public-facing systems and for those that are a controlling factor in a consequential decision (section 2054.711).
• Public-sector sandbox. DIR runs a separate program to support eligible entities in contracting with vendors for pre-deployment testing (section 2054.706).
• Advisory board. The eight-member Public Sector Artificial Intelligence Systems Advisory Board has six state agency members and two public members (section 2054.705).
• Complaints and enforcement. The Attorney General keeps a complaint page and determines whether to seek an injunction. A vendor that does not cure after a written notice and then a notice of intent to void, each with a window running to the 31st day, can have its contract voided (sections 2054.709-.710).

The disclosure text differs between the two laws. TRAIGA section 552.051(c) requires agency disclosure even if the AI's nature would be obvious, while SB 1964 section 2054.707 excuses it where a reasonable person would know.

DIR Rules: 1 TAC Chapter 219

DIR's Chapter 219 rules took effect March 18, 2026. Subchapter A holds the AI Code of Ethics, and Subchapter B sets the minimum standards for heightened scrutiny systems.

Under Subchapter B, each state agency and local government must designate an employee as AI Risk Officer (section 219.21). It must complete a written risk assessment before developing, procuring, deploying or using a heightened scrutiny system and at any material change, and the officer approves or denies deployment (section 219.22). Vendors must be contractually required to implement "an AI risk management framework such as that published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or a comparable standard" (section 219.24(d)).

HB 2818, HB 3512 and the Chinese AI App Ban

HB 2818 created an AI division within DIR to help agencies use generative AI on legacy-system modernization and other projects. If the division hires a vendor, the vendor's generative AI "must complete a majority of the work required to complete the project."

HB 3512 adds AI training to the existing annual cybersecurity training requirement for covered state and local government employees and officials, generally those who use a computer for at least 25 percent of their duties. DIR must certify at least five AI training programs each year.

Separately, on January 31, 2025, the governor ordered state agencies to ban Chinese government-based AI and social media apps from state-issued devices. He also ordered apps including DeepSeek added to the state's prohibited technologies list.

AI in Hiring and Employment in Texas

We found no employment-specific Texas AI statute. TRAIGA's text has no requirement for applicant notice, bias audits or impact assessments, and its "consumer" definition excludes people acting in an employment context.

The provision closest to the subject is section 552.056, which bars developing or deploying AI "with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class in violation of state or federal law." It does not mention hiring, but it applies to any person, does not depend on the "consumer" definition, and has no employment exception. Its statement that a disparate impact alone does not show intent applies only "for purposes of this section."

Texas employment law has its own disparate impact rule. Under Labor Code section 21.122, an unlawful employment practice can be established by showing that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion or disability, and that the respondent failed to show the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. That section does not require proof of intent, and it does not mention AI or software. It treats age claims separately.

How Texas Is Enforcing AI Law So Far

The public AI matters we found from the Attorney General rest on consumer protection law, the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act and the SCOPE Act. As of November 4, 2026, we found no TRAIGA enforcement action in the office's news releases. That search would not show a nonpublic inquiry.

• OpenAI (announced October 23, 2026). Texas sued OpenAI entities and CEO Sam Altman in a Collin County district court under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The petition has a second count under the SCOPE Act, pleaded as a per se Deceptive Trade Practices Act violation, and claims up to $10,000 per violation. It has no TRAIGA count. The published copy leaves the cause number blank, and its claims are allegations, not findings.
• Meta AI Studio and Character.AI (August 18, 2025). The Attorney General opened an investigation into whether the chatbot platforms engaged in deceptive trade practices and misleadingly marketed themselves as mental health tools, and issued civil investigative demands. The release says this follows an existing investigation into Character.AI for potential violations of the SCOPE Act.
• DeepSeek (February 14, 2025). The Attorney General announced an investigation and said the office had notified the company that its platform violates the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act. That is the office's position, not a court finding.
• Pieces Technologies (September 18, 2024). Before TRAIGA, the Attorney General reached a settlement with a Dallas health care AI company over allegedly false and misleading statements about its products' accuracy and safety. The company agreed to accurately disclose the extent of its products' accuracy.

Anyone concerned that an AI system is being developed or deployed in a way that violates Texas law can use the Attorney General's AI complaint form. The office also publishes a plain-language TRAIGA overview. It says Texas law bars it from giving legal advice to private individuals, so a person with a specific dispute would need a Texas-licensed lawyer for that.

Deepfakes, Chatbots and AI Note-Takers in Texas

Texas handles deepfakes mainly in separate laws. HB 3133 requires social media platforms to run a complaint system for explicit deep fake material, remove reported material and update the user within seven days. HB 581 requires commercial sites with public tools for creating artificial sexual material harmful to minors to verify age, unless the operator bans that content in its terms and takes technical steps to limit it. SB 441 addresses criminal and civil liability for sexually explicit media and artificial intimate visual material. See our Texas deepfake laws page for the details.

TRAIGA's text does not use the word chatbot and has no section written for minors who use one. Section 552.052 bars developing or deploying AI in a manner that intentionally aims to incite or encourage a person, of any age, to commit physical self-harm, harm another person or engage in criminal activity. Section 552.057(2) bars intentionally developing or distributing AI that has sexual text conversations while impersonating or imitating a child under 18; it turns on the AI's persona, not the user's age. The Attorney General has also pleaded the SCOPE Act against OpenAI, as described above. We found no separate Texas companion chatbot law in the bill histories and web searches behind this page.

Texas's interception statute, Penal Code section 16.02, turns on the consent of one party to the communication, and TRAIGA does not address it. For AI note-takers and meeting recorders, see Texas AI meeting recording laws.

Federal AI Policy and Texas

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. For what has happened since, see our pages on Trump's AI executive orders and state AI law preemption.

What Changes in Texas AI Law in 2027

As of November 4, 2026, we found no AI law scheduled to take effect in Texas in 2027. We searched Texas Legislature Online bill histories and enrolled texts for the 2025 regular-session AI bills listed on this page, plus web searches for the two 2025 special sessions. We did not run a full-text search of every bill. There was no regular session in 2026.

What is on the calendar:

Changes to these laws could come from that session. The lieutenant governor's 2026 interim charges tell Senate Business and Commerce to "make recommendations for any legislation needed to improve, enhance, or complete implementation of" bills including SB 815, SB 1964 and HB 149. A separate charge, "Preparing the Texas Workforce for AI," asks for a study of AI's effect on the Texas workforce. A Senate Economic Development hearing noticed for September 3, 2026, that listed it was marked canceled.

As of November 4, 2026, a Texas Legislature Online lookup for the 90th Legislature returned no bill data, so we have no 2027 bill to report. In web searches we found no court challenge to a Texas AI law; we did not run a docket search.

More Texas Laws

Explore other Texas law topics on Recording Law:

• Texas Recording Laws
• Texas Data Privacy Laws
• Texas Whistleblower Laws
• Texas Background Check Laws
• Texas Sexting Laws
• Texas Deepfake Laws
• Texas AI Meeting Recording Laws

This page is general legal information about Texas law as of November 4, 2026, not legal advice. Whether a law applies to a particular person or business depends on the facts, so consult a lawyer licensed in Texas for advice on a specific situation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Texas have an AI law?

Yes. The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, or TRAIGA (HB 149), has been in force since January 1, 2026. Texas also has narrower 2025 laws on health care AI (SB 1188, SB 815) and government AI (SB 1964, HB 2818, HB 3512).

What is TRAIGA?

TRAIGA is HB 149, codified at Texas Business and Commerce Code chapters 551-554. It bans certain intentional uses of AI, requires AI disclosure by governmental agencies and health care providers, and creates a regulatory sandbox and a seven-member advisory council. Its text does not impose risk-assessment duties on private companies.

When did the Texas AI law take effect?

HB 149 was signed June 22, 2025, and took effect January 1, 2026. SB 1188, SB 815, SB 1964, HB 2818 and HB 3512 were signed June 20, 2025, and took effect September 1, 2025. SB 815 applies to plans delivered, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.

Who enforces TRAIGA, and can I sue under it?

The Texas Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority, apart from limited sanctions by licensing agencies after a violation finding and the Attorney General's recommendation. TRAIGA does not provide a private right of action. A person can file a complaint through the Attorney General's AI complaint form.

What are the penalties under Texas's AI law?

TRAIGA section 552.105 sets $10,000 to $12,000 per curable violation or breach of a cure statement, $80,000 to $200,000 per uncurable violation, and $2,000 to $40,000 per day for a continued violation. The Attorney General must first give written notice and wait 60 days, and may not sue a person who cures in that time and gives the required written statement.

Do Texas businesses have to disclose that a chatbot is AI?

TRAIGA's disclosure rule in section 552.051 applies to governmental agencies and, for AI used in health care service or treatment, to the provider. It does not set a general duty for private business chatbots. The Texas Attorney General has used the Deceptive Trade Practices Act against AI companies.

Does Texas regulate AI in hiring?

We found no employment-specific Texas AI statute, such as one requiring bias audits or applicant notices. TRAIGA section 552.056 bars any person from developing or deploying AI with intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class. It does not mention hiring, but it has no employment exception, and it says disparate impact alone does not show intent for purposes of that section. Labor Code section 21.122 is separate: a disparate impact claim over an employment practice does not require proof of intent, and the employer can answer by showing the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. That section does not mention AI or software.

Do Texas doctors have to tell patients they use AI?

Yes, in two situations. Under SB 1188, a practitioner who uses AI for diagnostic purposes must disclose that use to patients, though the statute sets no timing. Under TRAIGA section 552.051(f), if AI is used in relation to health care service or treatment, the provider must disclose it no later than the date care is first provided, or as soon as reasonably possible in an emergency.

Can Texas health insurers use AI to deny claims?

Under SB 815, a utilization review agent may not use an automated decision system to make, wholly or partly, an adverse determination. The law still allows such tools for administrative support and fraud detection, and it applies to plans delivered, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.

Did Texas HB 366 become law?

No. HB 366, on altered media in political ads, passed the House on April 30, 2025. Its last action was 'Received from the House' in the Senate that day, and it was not enacted.

Is the Texas lawsuit against OpenAI a TRAIGA case?

No. The suit, announced October 23, 2026, pleads the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the SCOPE Act. The petition has no TRAIGA count, and its claims are allegations, not findings.

Can Texas cities pass their own AI rules?

TRAIGA section 552.003 says the chapter supersedes and preempts any ordinance, resolution, rule or other regulation adopted by a political subdivision regarding the use of AI systems.

Will Texas AI law change in 2027?

As of November 4, 2026, we found no Texas AI law scheduled to take effect in 2027. The 90th Legislature convenes January 12, 2027, and Senate Business and Commerce has an interim charge to recommend any legislation needed on HB 149, SB 815 and SB 1964.