Texas regulates AI through one statute, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149, Business & Commerce Code Chapters 551–554), which took effect on January 1, 2026 and which only the Texas Attorney General can enforce; there is no private right of action. For banks it is a light-touch regime: Section 552.056 bars developing or deploying AI with the intent to unlawfully discriminate, says a disparate impact alone does not show intent, and deems a federally insured financial institution to be in compliance if it complies with all federal and state banking laws. The AI-disclosure duty in Section 552.051 is written for governmental agencies and health care providers, not for a bank's customer chatbot. Violations carry civil penalties of $10,000–$12,000 (curable), $80,000–$200,000 (uncurable) and $2,000–$40,000 per day (continuing), after a 60-day notice-and-cure period, and the Attorney General can recommend that a licensing agency add sanctions of up to $100,000 against a licensed institution.
| Full name | Texas — Office of the Attorney General (exclusive enforcer of the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, HB 149), with the Department of Information Resources (regulatory sandbox) and the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council |
| Role | State attorney general enforcing an intent-based AI statute with prohibited uses, a cure period and a regulatory sandbox, and an express carve-out from its discrimination rule for federally insured financial institutions |
| Force on banks | Binding law |
| Applies to | Developers and deployers of AI systems doing business in or reaching Texas, including banks and credit unions. For banks the operative provisions are narrow: the prohibitions on AI built to manipulate people into self-harm, harm to others or crime, to impair constitutional rights, or to produce child sexual abuse material and sexually explicit deepfakes apply to any person; the unlawful-discrimination prohibition requires discriminatory intent and treats a federally insured financial institution as compliant if it complies with all federal and state banking laws; and the consumer-disclosure, social-scoring and biometric rules are written for governmental entities and health care providers, not for private banks |
| Key document | Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149, 89th Legislature; Business & Commerce Code Title 11, Subtitle D, Chapters 551–554; signed June 22, 2025, effective January 1, 2026) |
| Latest move | September 1, 2026 was the statutory deadline (HB 149, Section 8) for the Attorney General to post the information and online complaint mechanism required by Section 552.102; the Attorney General's consumer-protection site now carries a TRAIGA overview and an online AI complaint form. As of October 5, 2026 this review found no published enforcement action under the Act |
| Documents tracked | 1 · all documents → |
The Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority under Section 552.101 and must run an online complaint mechanism (Section 552.102). On a complaint the Attorney General may issue a civil investigative demand asking for a high-level description of the system's purpose and use, the data used to train it, its inputs and outputs, performance metrics, known limitations and post-deployment safeguards (Section 552.103). The Attorney General must then give written notice of the alleged violation and wait 60 days; no action may be brought if the person cures the violation and provides a written statement with supporting documentation and internal-policy changes (Section 552.104). The statute presumes a person used reasonable care (Section 552.105(c)) and bars liability where another person misuses the system or where the defendant found the violation through feedback, adversarial or red-team testing, state-agency guidelines, or an internal review process while substantially complying with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework: Generative AI Profile or another recognized framework (Section 552.105(e)). The Attorney General's own consumer-protection page summarizes the Act and links an online AI complaint form.
For regulated institutions the second enforcement channel matters. Under Section 552.106 a state agency may impose sanctions on a person it licenses, registers or certifies for a violation of Subchapter B once the person has been found in violation under Section 552.105 and the Attorney General has recommended additional enforcement; sanctions include suspension, probation or revocation and a monetary penalty not exceeding $100,000. A federally insured bank is separately protected on the discrimination prohibition by Section 552.056(e), and Section 503.001(e) of the biometric-identifier statute, as amended by HB 149, exempts voiceprint data retained by a financial institution and AI developed or deployed to detect fraud and security incidents. HB 149 also created a Department of Information Resources regulatory sandbox that lets approved participants, including in finance, test AI for up to 36 months with waivers of state requirements (Chapter 553), and a seven-member Texas Artificial Intelligence Council that may issue reports but may not adopt binding rules (Chapter 554). The Act does not call for AI rulemaking by the Attorney General, so the statute and the Attorney General's enforcement choices are the whole regime.
What has the Texas AG actually published on AI?
| Date | Document | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2025 | Texas TRAIGA (HB 149) — Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (H.B. 149, 89th Legislature) | In force |
| Date | Type | Document / event |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2026 | Milestone | Deadline for the Attorney General to post the TRAIGA information and online complaint mechanism. HB 149, Section 8 required the Attorney General to post on its website, not later than September 1, 2026, the information and the online mechanism through which a consumer may submit a complaint under Section 552.102. A complaint through that mechanism is what allows the Attorney General to issue a civil investigative demand under Section 552.103. The Attorney General's TRAIGA page offers an online AI complaint form. |
| Jun 22, 2025 | Statute | Texas TRAIGA (HB 149) — Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (H.B. 149, 89th Legislature). The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA, H.B. source ↗ |
- Whether the Attorney General issues the first civil investigative demands or Section 552.104 notices of violation under TRAIGA now that the complaint portal is open, and whether any target is a financial institution
- Department of Information Resources rules and application forms for the regulatory sandbox (Section 553.052(b) requires the department to prescribe the application form by rule), the first approved participants, and the role of a state banking agency as an applicable agency
- Reports from the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council to the Legislature under Section 554.101, and any amendment proposed to Chapters 551–554 when the Texas Legislature next meets in regular session in January 2027
- How the Attorney General reads the Section 552.056(e) financial-institution provision and the NIST AI RMF defense in Section 552.105(e) in its first matters
Does the Texas AI law apply to banks?
Yes, in a limited way. TRAIGA applies to any person who conducts business in Texas or develops or deploys AI in Texas (Section 551.002), but its bank-relevant duties are narrow: a ban on AI built with intent to unlawfully discriminate, which treats a federally insured financial institution as compliant if it complies with all federal and state banking laws (Section 552.056(e)), and bans on a few extreme uses that apply to everyone. The AI-interaction disclosure in Section 552.051 is addressed to governmental agencies and health care providers.
Who enforces the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act?
The Texas Attorney General has exclusive authority to enforce it (Section 552.101(a)). There is no private right of action (Section 552.101(b)). A state licensing agency can impose its own sanctions, up to $100,000 and including license suspension or revocation, only after a finding under Section 552.105 and an Attorney General recommendation (Section 552.106).
What are the penalties under TRAIGA?
After a 60-day notice-and-cure period, civil penalties are $10,000–$12,000 per curable violation, $80,000–$200,000 per uncurable violation, and $2,000–$40,000 per day for a continuing violation (Section 552.105(a)). The Attorney General can also seek injunctions, attorney's fees and investigative costs.
Follow every move these regulators make
when one of these regulators moves, the next morning's brief says so · six sourced stories · 7 am ET · free
plus every tracker, bank and agent page update, the morning after · leave any morning