Texas AI Governance
Texas took a narrower path than Colorado. The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) is not a universal high-risk-AI framework with mandatory impact assessments. It is a targeted set of prohibitions enforced exclusively by the Texas Attorney General, paired with sector guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance that reaches AI-assisted decisions across every regulated carrier in the state. Organizations selling into Texas or regulated by TDI need both pieces in view.
Enforcement runs exclusively through the Texas Attorney General. There is no private right of action. The AG can issue civil investigative demands covering a system’s purpose, training data, inputs and outputs, performance metrics, known limitations, and monitoring documentation, and must give 60 days’ notice and an opportunity to cure before filing suit. Civil penalties range from $10,000 to $12,000 per curable violation, $80,000 to $200,000 per uncurable violation, and $2,000 to $40,000 per day for continuing violations. TRAIGA also creates an affirmative defense for organizations that can show substantial compliance with NIST’s AI RMF or a comparable recognized risk-management framework, and a DIR-administered regulatory sandbox lets approved participants test AI systems for up to 36 months without standard state licensing (the core prohibitions still apply inside the sandbox). Chapter 552 also preempts city and county AI ordinances statewide, which matters for organizations operating across multiple Texas municipalities.
Enforced by the Texas Department of Insurance through its examination authority over authorized carriers, HMOs, and utilization review agents operating in the state.
How Trustible Supports Texas Compliance
Your First 90 Days
Day 30: Map Developer and Deployer Roles
Identify every AI system in use, who developed it, and who deploys it in Texas. Flag any healthcare, insurance, or government-adjacent use cases subject to heightened disclosure duties.
Day 60: Document Discrimination and Bias Review
Launch structured review of AI systems for discriminatory outcomes, with documented rationale that goes beyond disparate impact data alone. For insurance use cases, align testing with TDI Bulletin B-0003-26 expectations.
Day 90: Operationalize Vendor Oversight and Reporting
Connect vendor evaluation workflows to procurement so third-party AI accountability doesn’t quietly transfer to Trustible customers. Prepare documentation TRAIGA’s cure period and TDI examinations would require on short notice.
Texas AI FAQs
No. The general AI disclosure duty applies to government agencies. Private companies only face a specific disclosure duty in the healthcare treatment context.
No. TRAIGA requires intent to discriminate. A narrowing amendment made clear that disparate impact data by itself is not sufficient to establish that intent, a meaningfully different standard than Illinois or Colorado.
The Texas Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority. There is no private right of action, and the AG must provide 60 days’ notice and a cure opportunity before suing.
Yes. Chapter 552 preempts city and county regulation of AI systems, so compliance obligations are set at the state level statewide.
TDI Bulletin B-0003-26 applies existing insurance law to AI-assisted decisions for every authorized carrier, with no size threshold, requiring governance controls, human review, and vendor accountability independent of TRAIGA’s own provisions.