Back
Littler Mendelson analysis
webRelevant for tracking U.S. state-level AI governance trends; Texas's approach notably limits private-sector obligations and removes disparate impact protections, contrasting with more employer-focused frameworks like Colorado's AI law.
Metadata
Importance: 45/100news articleanalysis
Summary
Littler Mendelson analyzes Texas's newly enacted TRAIGA 2.0 (HB 149), signed June 22, 2025, which establishes an AI governance framework effective January 1, 2026. The law focuses compliance burdens on governmental entities rather than private businesses, explicitly eliminates disparate impact as a discrimination theory, and creates a 7-member oversight council. It represents a scaled-back version of an earlier failed proposal, prioritizing innovation over regulatory burden.
Key Points
- •TRAIGA 2.0 places most compliance obligations on governmental entities, with minimal requirements for private-sector businesses or employers.
- •The law expressly eliminates disparate impact as a viable theory of discrimination, a notable departure from civil rights frameworks.
- •Effective January 1, 2026, it covers any entity doing business in Texas or producing products/services consumed by Texas residents.
- •A 7-member AI governance council appointed by state leadership will issue reports and guidance under the framework.
- •TRAIGA 1.0 failed due to concerns about stifling innovation and First Amendment issues; TRAIGA 2.0 is a simplified, less burdensome successor.
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| US State AI Legislation Landscape | Analysis | 70.0 |
Cached Content Preview
HTTP 200Fetched Mar 15, 202615 KB
Texas Joins the Fray and Enacts AI Legislation | Littler
Skip to main content
ASAP
ASAP
Texas Joins the Fray and Enacts AI Legislation
By Melissa Ackie, Mark Flores, Jes Craft, and Greg Dimirsky
June 30, 2025
8 minute read
At a Glance
Texas joins a growing number of states regulating artificial intelligence (AI).
TRAIGA 2.0 places most of the compliance burdens on governmental entities and very little on private-sector businesses or employers.
TRAIGA 2.0 expressly eliminates disparate impact as a viable theory of discrimination under the Act.
Following in the footsteps of an increasing number of states, Texas just joined the growing movement to regulate artificial intelligence (AI). On Sunday, June 22, 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 149, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (“TRAIGA 2.0”), into law. TRAIGA 2.0, so called as it is the second attempt to pass such a law this session, establishes a patchwork framework for AI development and deployment focused on government transparency, consumer rights, the responsible use of AI systems, and procedural safeguards to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation in the AI space. TRAIGA 2.0 is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.
Background
Early in the 2025 legislative session, State Representative Giovanni Capriglione (R), proposed a bill, HB 1709 or TRAIGA 1.0, that imposed reporting obligations and requirements for AI developers and mandated deployers to produce a Risk Identification and Management Policy. Developers, distributors, and deployers—including employers—of “high-risk AI systems” would owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid “algorithmic discrimination,” which was to include political viewpoint discrimination and any use of AI that “limits an individual’s ability to express or receive others’ beliefs or opinions based solely on the individual’s political benefits, opinions or affiliations.” TRAIGA 1.0 also would have required a deployer to conduct an impact assessment of a high-risk AI system prior to deployment, and similar to the AI law enacted in Colorado in 2024, to adopt and implement a risk management policy to govern the deployment of high-risk AI systems. The rejected proposed bill also called for the development of the Artificial Intelligence Workforce Development Grant Program, which was intended to support Texas AI companies and educational institutions to prepare for future AI uses and their impacts on workers, students, and society.
Among other criticisms, opponents contended that the bill imposed unnecessary government oversight and bureaucratic requirements with steep administrative penalties that would stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, especially for small business
... (truncated, 15 KB total)Resource ID:
1a561c2cd77a69aa | Stable ID: OGQ3NDZhNG