Introduction
The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) [2], effective January 1, 2026 [2], establishes a comprehensive framework for regulating the development and use of AI systems, particularly by government agencies [2]. It aims to balance innovation with ethical considerations and privacy protections for Texas residents.
Description
Texas has enacted the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) [2], effective January 1, 2026 [2], to regulate the development and use of AI systems [2] [3] [5], particularly by government agencies [2]. This law applies to developers [2], deployers [1] [2], and government entities utilizing AI that impacts Texas residents [2], with a broad definition encompassing systems that generate content [2], decisions [2], or recommendations [1] [2]. Companies intending to use biometric identifiers [5], such as fingerprints and facial geometry [5], for commercial purposes related to AI must obtain proper consent [5], as the law prohibits tracking individuals biometrically without consent [2]. Notably, individuals do not consent to the capture of their biometric identifiers simply because their images or videos are publicly available online; AI companies cannot scrape publicly posted photographs or voice recordings to build facial recognition models without violating Texas law unless the individual made the media public themselves, implying consent for that specific use [1]. Additionally, biometric data must be destroyed within one year after its intended purpose has been fulfilled [5].
Healthcare providers utilizing AI tools in treatment must inform patients about this use prior to treatment or as soon as possible in emergency situations [5], aligning with existing regulations in certain states [5]. TRAIGA also includes consumer disclosure requirements [2], mandating that individuals interacting with AI in Texas be informed of its presence [2]. Certain uses of AI that discriminate, promote self-harm [2], or violence are explicitly prohibited. Furthermore, the law updates provisions for AI training with biometric data [1], allowing the use of biometric identifiers for developing or training AI models without prior consent [1], provided the AI system is not used to identify individuals [1]. Companies can use voice recordings to train speech recognition AI without obtaining consent for each voiceprint [1], as long as the AI is not deployed for identification purposes [1]. However, if the data or AI model is later used for commercial identification [1], standard biometric consent and retention rules apply [1].
TRAIGA prohibits government AI biometric identification [1], preventing state or local authorities from outsourcing identification tasks to AI [1], with exceptions for security or fraud prevention that comply with existing laws [1]. The law also introduces significant exemptions for AI systems that do not uniquely identify individuals and those designed to address security incidents, identity theft [4], fraud [1] [4], harassment [4], or other illegal activities [4]. Financial institutions using voiceprint authentication and businesses handling biometric data for internal AI training are exempt from certain consent requirements [1]. The law defers to existing regulations in sectors like insurance to avoid double-regulation [1].
A regulatory sandbox program established under TRAIGA allows approved businesses to test innovative AI systems in a controlled environment for a period of 36 months without the risk of legal action from the Texas Attorney General for violations of the AI law during this testing phase. Participants must apply [1], detailing their AI’s functionality [2], intended use [1] [5], and risk management strategies [2]. They are required to submit quarterly performance reports and user feedback [2], with enforcement actions suspended as long as they adhere to TRAIGA’s core restrictions [2]. However, core prohibitions of TRAIGA cannot be waived [1], and violations can lead to enforcement actions [1]. The Department of Information Resources (DIR) and the AI Council can recommend removing participants if the AI poses undue risks or violates laws [1].
The enforcement of the law falls under the jurisdiction of the Texas Attorney General [5], and it does not provide for a private right of action [5], meaning companies will not face class actions or individual lawsuits under this law [1]. Civil penalties for violations can be substantial [2], but a safe-harbor provision allows companies to avoid liability if they promptly remediate any discovered violations [3] [5]. Companies adhering to recognized industry standards [3] [5], such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework [3] [5], will benefit from a rebuttable presumption of care [5]. An AI Advisory Council has also been created to provide reports to the legislature and offer guidance to state agencies and local governments on AI-related matters, focusing on compliance, ethical issues [1], data privacy [1], and potential liabilities [1].
Conclusion
Overall, TRAIGA creates a supportive infrastructure for AI governance in Texas [1], balancing economic development with the need to address AI-related risks [1]. Companies developing innovative AI applications may find opportunities within the regulatory sandbox [1], which offers a low-risk environment for piloting solutions while ensuring oversight and temporary relief from certain regulations [1]. The act underscores Texas’s commitment to fostering technological advancement while safeguarding individual rights and promoting ethical AI practices.
References
[1] https://blog.em3law.com/2025/07/16/texas-ai-law-traiga/
[2] https://www.bubecklaw.com/privacyspeak/texas-launches-first-state-ai-sandbox-and-it-could-be-a-game-changer
[3] https://natlawreview.com/article/countdown-2026-what-will-texas-ai-law-mean-businesses
[4] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/texas-enacts-responsible-artificial-5302678/
[5] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/countdown-to-2026-what-will-the-texas-1340005/
