In early January of this year, you might have seen my LinkedIn post and Fulton|Jeang.com blog article closely analyzing the possible legal impact of a newly introduced Texas House bill (HB1709), the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act ("TRAIGA"). TRAIGA is a big deal for Texas. It is a head start opportunity to make the state friendly to businesses seeking to innovate and advance AI technology in Texas. It will put us ahead of other states in widening this critically important intersection of commerce, tech, and regulation.
On April 23, 2025, a news publication, The Texan, announced that a revised version of TRAIGA has passed the House and is headed to the Texas Senate for consideration as HB 149. Both versions were written and steered through the process by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione. The news article went on to note that there had been significant pushback from industry and free market advocates against the original HB1709. The pushback typically had criticized TRAIGA as being too much like the European Union's AI Act in its likely stifling, bureaucratic and anti-innovation effects on the American AI industry. One cited commentary noted that the European approach is causing European industry to lag behind the world in digital innovation, to be the "Biggest Loser."
I had criticisms about oppressive, EU-like, overly broad prohibitions in the first bill. I was also optimistic about where further revision to that flawed bill might take us, the preferred objective being an equally comprehensive regulatory and more innovation-friendly approach. My first, narrowly targeted, look indicates that the work done in the House has improved the bill. Perhaps our friends in the EU will make similar revisions someday.
One comparison. Here in Texas, here's the example I have seen in a quick look. I hunted through the new bill for the old bill's EU-like prohibition against "subliminal techniques" and surrounding language. These I had criticized in my January blog. The opaque concept "subliminal techniques" is now gone, and the entire provision replaced, as follows.
Old version HB1709 Section 551.051 stated a prohibition against "manipulation of human behavior to circumvent informed decision-making." That language had basically followed the EU AI Act language further prohibiting use of "subliminal techniques beyond a person's consciousness, or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques ... by appreciably impairing their ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing a person to make a decision that the person would not have otherwise made, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause significant harm to that person or another person or group of persons." Not good. Swampy.
New version HB149 Section 552.052 looks much more precise, concise, and understandable, a real clean-up:
MANIPULATION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR. A person may
not develop or deploy an artificial intelligence system in a manner
that intentionally aims to incite or encourage a person to:
(1) commit physical self-harm, including suicide;
(2) harm another person; or
(3) engage in criminal activity.
Much better! If this is an example of how the rest of the new bill compares with the old one, Texas really will take a leadership role in Responsible AI Governance, and leave the EU AI Act model behind. The new direction will be innovation-friendly while protecting the rights and welfare of individuals who do need protection from the still-accelerating speed, power, and impact of AI development and implementation. It should be an influential shift in a better direction for our collective US culture, economy, freedom of speech, and basic human welfare.
So, that's my fond hope. I will more thoroughly compare the old and the new versions over the next week or so. You'll see a further report from me sometime after that.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
