Everything’s bigger in Texas, including AI regulation. With the passage of the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), the Lone Star State has taken a giant step toward balancing innovation with accountability, ethics with efficiency, and transparency with technological ambition.
Set to take effect on January 1, 2026, TRAIGA is a comprehensive framework that could influence national policy, corporate strategy, and cross-functional risk assessments alike. If you’re a privacy pro, compliance lead, or tech security strategist, buckle up: this law is a wake-up call, not a warning shot.
Why TRAIGA was needed: Transparency, risk prevention, and ethical AI use
The world isn’t sitting around waiting for AI to get safer; it’s barrelling forward. And Texas wasn’t content to stay on the sidelines with its booming tech economy and deep investment in AI across sectors.
TRAIGA, inspired in part by laws in Colorado, California, and the EU, centers on three critical goals:
- Transparency in AI system deployment.
- Accountability for developers and deployers.
- Protection against harm, including discrimination, manipulation, and privacy violations.
But the Texas twist? This law goes beyond AI regulation; unlike Colorado, which aims to govern high-risk AI use, Texas strives to prevent and respond to harms caused by the misuse of AI.
TRAIGA compliance scope: Who must follow the Texas AI law in 2026
If you build, use, sell, or even offer AI tools in Texas, you’re in the frame. TRAIGA applies to any entity or individual who:
- Conducts business in Texas.
- Offers products or services to Texas residents.
- Develops or deploys AI within the state.
Government entities are also responsible, except for hospital districts and higher education institutions. State agencies face some of the most detailed disclosure mandates, especially when using AI for eligibility decisions, public services, or medical diagnostics.
AI use rules, disclosure obligations, and prohibited practices under Texas law
TRAIGA outlines a clear set of responsibilities for AI developers and deployers across three core areas: accountability for intent, transparency in disclosure, and restrictions on harmful or manipulative uses.
Intent-Based Liability
Move over, outcome-based enforcement. Texas requires AI developers and deployers to prove they intended to mitigate risk. It’s not enough to say “oops.”
Organizations must:
- Avoid intentional discrimination
- Document how systems are designed
- Ensure they’re not infringing on constitutional rights
Disclosure Rules
Whether it’s an agency chatbot, AI-led medical triage, or a biometric check-in system, disclosures must be:
- Clear and conspicuous
- In plain language
- Free from deceptive or dark patterns
Disclosures are required even if it’s obvious that a system is AI-powered. Healthcare providers must disclose AI use before treatment begins or as soon as possible in emergencies.
Prohibited Uses
The law strictly bans AI that:
- Intentionally encourages self-harm or criminal behavior.
- Enables child exploitation or deepfake sexual content.
- Conducts social scoring that results in unjust discrimination.
- Uses biometric data to identify individuals without consent.
Important nuance: Biometric data used solely for training purposes is exempt from TRAIGA restrictions. However, if the data is later used for commercial identification, it must comply with strict possession, consent, destruction, and penalty provisions.
As expected in Texas, the Responsible AI Governance Act is backed by steep fines (more on that shortly).
Implications for Business: Get governance-ready or risk the fallout
This isn’t a “compliance lite” regulation. Businesses must treat TRAIGA like a core risk vector, not a side hustle. Here’s what it demands:
- Cross-functional coordination: Legal, privacy, AI/ML, and ethics teams must align.
- Documentation requirements: Record intent, known system limitations, and post-deployment monitoring efforts in case of suspected noncompliance.
- Product lifecycle accountability: AI risk requires a continuous audit, not a one-time check.
For privacy professionals, this feels like a GDPR déjà vu moment, but with an AI twist. Companies will need robust internal review processes, such as those recommended by the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, to prove compliance.
Public and private sector AI compliance requirements in Texas
Public sector
Government agencies face elevated transparency duties:
- Must notify citizens when AI is used in interactions.
- Cannot use AI for biometric ID without consent.
- Are barred from deploying AI that scores people based on behavior, beliefs, or social traits.
The AG will also launch a public complaint portal, giving citizens direct access to raise AI concerns.
Private sector
Businesses must:
- Disclose high-risk AI usage in health, hiring, education, housing, credit, and more.
- Proactively document system intent and safety measures.
- Respond to AG investigations with detailed records on system inputs, outputs, and safeguards.
In short? If your AI touches a person’s rights or access to opportunity, you need to disclose, safeguard, and document.
AI compliance enforcement and civil penalties under TRAIGA
No private lawsuits here, but don’t relax just yet. TRAIGA gives exclusive enforcement authority to the Texas Attorney General. The AG can investigate violations, issue civil demands for records and risk assessments, manage complaints, and impose penalties.
Pro tip: Texas is already known for aggressive privacy law enforcement. For example, the Texas AG has pursued landmark actions under the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, including major settlements and investigations into sensitive data misuse.
Penalties include:
| Violation Type | Fine |
|---|---|
| Curable (e.g., fixable with notice) | $10,000–$12,000 |
| Incurable | $80,000–$200,000 |
| Ongoing (per day) | $2,000–$40,000/day |
There’s a 60-day cure window, and the organization provides the AG with a written statement that it has:
- Cured the violation
- Provided supporting documentation of how it cured the violation
- Made necessary changes to internal policies to prevent further violations
Texas AI Regulatory Sandbox: Safe experimentation with compliance oversight
The Texas Department of Information Resources will develop a regulatory sandbox program, enabling businesses to test high-risk systems in a regulatory sandbox, but only with the approval from the Department. The sandbox:
- Allows up to 36 months of controlled system testing
- Temporary waivers from certain rules (except public safety provisions)
- Requires quarterly reporting on system performance and risk mitigation
To participate in the program, Participants must:
- Submit detailed descriptions of the AI system that is proposed to be tested in the program, including its intended use.
- Submit a benefit assessment of the system that addresses potential impacts on consumers, privacy, and public safety.
- Detail measures to mitigate adverse consequences that may occur during testing.
- Demonstrate compliance with federal AI law.
Monitor the Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) website for updates and guidance on the application process.
What TRAIGA means for AI governance in Texas
TRAIGA establishes a clear, enforceable framework for responsible AI use in Texas. The law sets requirements for transparency, intent-based liability, and disclosure—especially in high-risk sectors such as healthcare, housing, education, and employment.
Both public and private entities that develop or deploy AI systems in the state must take steps to:
- Document system intent and risk mitigation strategies.
- Notify individuals when AI is used in services or decision-making.
- Avoid prohibited practices such as biometric identification without consent or manipulative social scoring.
- Align with recognized governance frameworks like NIST AI RMF to support defensible compliance.
With enforcement authority resting solely with the Texas Attorney General, and penalties ranging from curable notices to substantial fines, businesses must begin preparing now. The law also introduces a regulatory sandbox for safe experimentation and includes specific provisions around biometric data and dark pattern disclosures.
Certified for Confidence. Built for Trust.
Show the world your AI is built on accountability. Prove your alignment with global standards like NIST and OECD while meeting the rising tide of AI regulations.
Get certified
Map Risk. Master Compliance.
Automate ROPA creation, visualize data movement across systems and vendors, and get real-time risk scoring that aligns with over 130 global laws and frameworks.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA)
What is the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA)?
TRAIGA is a comprehensive AI regulation passed in Texas to ensure the ethical, transparent, and responsible use of artificial intelligence. It mandates disclosure, restricts harmful practices, and enforces accountability across both public and private sectors. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2026.
Who must comply with TRAIGA?
Any individual or organization that conducts business in Texas, offers products or services to Texas residents, or develops or deploys AI systems within the state must comply. This includes Texas-based companies, public agencies, and out-of-state businesses targeting Texas consumers.
What AI systems are considered high-risk under TRAIGA?
High-risk use cases include AI systems involved in decisions affecting health care, employment, housing, education, lending, and other critical sectors that influence individual rights or access to services.
What are the core obligations under TRAIGA?
Organizations must:
- Clearly disclose AI use in plain language
- Avoid deceptive practices and dark patterns
- Document intent and risk mitigation strategies
- Prevent harm, discrimination, or constitutional violations by design
What penalties exist for non-compliance with TRAIGA?
Violations may result in:
- $10,000–$12,000 for curable offenses
- $80,000–$200,000 for incurable violations
- $2,000–$40,000 per day for ongoing infractions
A 60-day cure period is provided. Defenses include demonstrating reasonable care, third-party fault, or adherence to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.
Is biometric data covered under TRAIGA?
Yes. If biometric data is used for training purposes, it may be exempt. However, if used for commercial identification, it must follow consent, destruction, and penalty provisions.
Can consumers sue under TRAIGA?
No. TRAIGA does not grant a private right of action. Only the Texas Attorney General has the authority to investigate violations and impose penalties.
