Current as of November 2, 2026. Laws evolve — verify against current sources and consult licensed counsel.
Texas TRAIGA: The AI Law That Regulates Intent, Not Outcomes
The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA, HB 149) took effect January 1, 2026. For employers it is best understood backwards: most of what other states now require of hiring AI, Texas deliberately does not — and the one thing it does prohibit is the thing no audit can excuse.
What TRAIGA does not require of employers
| Duty found elsewhere | Texas position under TRAIGA |
|---|---|
| Candidate notice that AI is used (NYC, CT, IL, CO) | No employment disclosure duty — TRAIGA’s disclosure provisions do not cover the employment context |
| Independent bias audit (NYC Local Law 144) | None required |
| Impact or risk assessment (CA CPPA rules) | None required — earlier drafts contained assessment duties; the enacted law dropped them |
| Disparate-impact liability for AI outcomes | Expressly not the test: a disparate impact, by itself, is not sufficient to demonstrate the intent TRAIGA prohibits |
What it does prohibit
Developing or deploying an AI system with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class. “Consumer” under TRAIGA excludes a person acting in an employment context for most of the Act’s consumer-facing duties, but the intentional-discrimination prohibition is the provision employers must take seriously — configuring, selecting, or continuing to use a tool because of how it treats a protected group is exactly the conduct it targets.
Enforcement arithmetic
- Attorney General only. There is no private right of action under TRAIGA; individuals complain to the AG.
- Notice and cure first. The AG must give notice and a 60-day period to cure before seeking penalties for curable violations.
- Penalty bands (as enacted): $10,000–$12,000 per curable violation left unaddressed; $80,000–$200,000 per uncurable violation; $2,000–$40,000 per day for continuing violations.
- Framework recognition. TRAIGA recognizes substantial compliance with nationally or internationally recognized AI risk-management frameworks (the NIST framework family) in its liability provisions — a reason for Texas employers to document governance even though no assessment is mandated.
The trap: reading TRAIGA as “Texas has no AI hiring law”
TRAIGA’s restraint is state-law only. Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA apply to a Texas employer’s hiring tool with full disparate-impact force, and a private plaintiff — not the AG — is the usual plaintiff there. An employer that stops monitoring a screening tool because “Texas doesn’t require audits” has confused the absence of a state process duty with the absence of discrimination liability. See the federal overlay guide and the bias-audit mechanics guide.
Sources
Texas Legislature, HB 149, Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (signed June 22, 2025; effective January 1, 2026), Business & Commerce Code provisions as enacted; penalty and cure figures as summarized from the enacted text in Gibson Dunn, “Artificial Intelligence in Employment Newsletter — October 2026.” Checked November 2, 2026.
What to do next
- Inventory your AI tools. List every system that screens, scores, ranks, schedules, or evaluates workers — vendor, purpose, data inputs, deployment date.
- Map each tool to each regime. Use the AI hiring law tracker — a tool can be unregulated in one jurisdiction and regulated in another.
- Get the right help. Browse AI Bias Auditors for testing and Employment Law Firms — AI Hiring for legal review.