Home › AI Laws › Texas › El Paso
AI Laws in El Paso, Texas
As of 2026-06-17, AI Laws USA tracks 36 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in El Paso, Texas: 10+ federal protections, 25 Texas state-level rules, and 1 local El Paso ordinance. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, consumer data privacy, and deepfakes. 26 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
El Paso local AI rules (and El Paso County)
1 local AI rule specific to El Paso, Texas or El Paso County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
El Paso TX
El Paso, TX · Effective 2026-01-21 · El Paso City Council resolution 2026-01-21 (2026-01-21)
Council-adopted policy requires AI tool inventory, restricts use to approved enterprise platforms, bars input of PII or law-enforcement data into consumer AI, prohibits sole-AI decisions, and requires disclosure of AI-generated content in public communications.
Texas-level AI rules most relevant to El Paso
25 Texas state rules apply to residents and businesses in El Paso. Showing the 8 most relevant to El Paso's local picture; 17 more are on the Texas jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Limited protection
TRAIGA
Texas · Effective 2026-01-01 · Tex. HB 149 (2025), TRAIGA
Texas's AI law bans specific harmful uses of AI — intentional discrimination, behavioral manipulation encouraging self-harm or crime, social scoring by government, and certain biometric identification without consent — and requires government agencies to disclose AI interactions to consumers. It includes a regulatory sandbox and preempts local AI ordinances.
-
In effect Limited protection
TDPSA
Texas · Effective 2024-07-01 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 541 (HB 4, 2023)
Texans can access, correct, delete, and obtain copies of personal data held by covered businesses, and can opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling used for decisions with significant effects (like jobs, housing, or credit). Businesses must get consent for sensitive data, including biometrics.
-
In effect Moderate protection
TX TRAIGA (HB 149)
TX · Effective 2026-01-01 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 552; HB 149 (89th Leg., R.S., 2025)
Texas passed a comprehensive AI law that, among other things, prohibits AI systems intentionally developed to engage in unlawful discrimination or behavioral manipulation, criminalizes AI-generated child sexual abuse material, and gives the Texas Attorney General sweeping enforcement authority over deceptive AI practices. Compliance began January 1, 2026.
-
In effect Moderate protection
TX SB 2205 (2017 AV statute)
Texas · Effective 2017-09-01 · Tex. Transp. Code §§ 545.451–545.456
Texas's main autonomous-vehicle law explicitly authorizes AVs to operate on Texas roads without a human driver, defines the 'owner' of an automated driving system as the legal operator for liability and traffic enforcement, and preempts local AV bans. It set the framework that later allowed Waymo, Cruise, and Aurora freight to operate in Texas.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Texas v. Allstate / Arity
TX · Effective 2025-01-13 · Texas v. Allstate / Arity — Driving Data Collection Suit (TDPSA + Data Broker Law) (2025-01-13)
First-ever TDPSA and Data Broker Law suit. Alleges SDK-based collection of geolocation and driving-behavior data from 45M+ Americans via Life360, GasBuddy, etc., used to score drivers and set premiums. Active in 2026.
-
In effect Limited protection
TX Government AI Governance (Subchapter S / SB 1964)
Texas · Effective 2025-09-01 · Tex. S.B. 1964, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); Tex. Gov't Code ch. 2054, subch. S
Texas now requires state agencies to catalog the artificial intelligence systems they use and to give extra review to higher-risk systems that influence consequential decisions about people. The state's Department of Information Resources must publish a statewide AI code of ethics and set baseline rules for managing AI risk and governance, and agencies must run assessments on their highest-scrutiny systems. When a member of the public interacts with a government AI system, the agency has to tell them they are dealing with AI. If an agency or its vendor breaks these rules, the attorney general can go to court to stop the violation and can void a vendor's contract that caused it.
-
In effect Limited protection
TX AG Paxton AI scam alert
TX · Effective 2025-03-19 · Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46; TX OAG Consumer Alert (Mar. 19, 2025)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton warned Texans about AI voice-cloning scams, AI-generated romance and investment fraud, and deepfake impersonation of family members — and pledged DTPA enforcement against bad actors. Builds on the TX AG's Pieces Technologies settlement and TRAIGA implementation.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Texas v. Pieces Technologies
TX · Effective 2024-09-18 · Texas v. Pieces Technologies — Healthcare Generative AI Settlement (2024-09-18)
First state AG settlement targeting deceptive GenAI clinical marketing. Alleged Pieces misrepresented hallucination rates of a hospital summarization tool at four TX hospitals; settlement mandates accurate disclosures and monitoring. This action is an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC), not a monetary settlement; no penalty was assessed and Pieces Technologies denies wrongdoing.
Federal AI rules that apply in El Paso, Texas
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including El Paso, Texas. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective 2025-09-05 · Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal.)
Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic over its use of pirated-book datasets to train Claude. In June 2025 Judge William Alsup issued a split ruling: training on lawfully purchased books was fair use, but ingesting pirated copies from LibGen was not. In September 2025 Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement — the largest AI copyright recovery to date.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Banner v. Tesla (Autopilot)
S.D. Fla. · Effective 2025-08-01 · Banner v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)
A Florida federal jury found Tesla 33% liable in August 2025 for the 2019 death of Naibel Benavides Leon, in a crash involving Autopilot. The verdict awarded $243M (later reduced to ~$220M) — the first Autopilot wrongful-death verdict against Tesla.
-
In effect Stronger protection
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective 2025-06-23 · 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. Part 312
COPPA requires online services aimed at children under 13 to get verifiable parental consent before collecting kids' personal data. The 2025 rule update — fully in effect since April 22, 2026 — adds biometric identifiers (like face templates and voiceprints, which matter for AI tools), requires separate parental consent before sharing children's data for targeted advertising, and tightens data retention limits.
-
In effect Stronger protection
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective 2025-05-19 · Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146)
Makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of someone without consent, including AI-generated deepfakes. Social media and similar platforms must give victims a way to request removal and must take the content (and known copies) down within 48 hours. The platform removal requirement became enforceable May 19, 2026, and the FTC has already begun enforcement.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective 2025-03-18 · Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
The companion copyright case: Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright with 'Creativity Machine' (his AI) as the author. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in March 2025 that the Copyright Act's human-authorship requirement is constitutional and dispositive. AI cannot be a copyright author under U.S. law.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Thomson Reuters v. Ross
D. Del. · Effective 2025-02-11 · Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 3d 467 (D. Del. 2025)
Thomson Reuters sued legal-research startup Ross Intelligence in 2020 for copying Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal-research tool. In February 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation) granted summary judgment to Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement and rejected Ross's fair-use defense — the first definitive U.S. ruling on AI-training fair use. The 2023 jury trial verdict had been deadlocked; the 2025 ruling resolved liability.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective 2024-11-20 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)
SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.
-
In effect Stronger protection
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective 2024-04-30 · NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2024)
Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act — requiring parental consent for minors' social-media use, including algorithmic feeds — was permanently enjoined as unconstitutional in April 2024.
-
In effect Stronger protection
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective 2024-04-01 · 16 C.F.R. Part 461; 89 Fed. Reg. 15017
The FTC's Impersonation Rule lets the agency directly sue scammers who pretend to be a government agency or a real business — including those who use AI-cloned voices or generated images to do so. Civil penalties can reach $53,088 per violation. The FTC also issued a supplemental notice in February 2024 proposing to extend the rule to all individual impersonation.
-
In effect Stronger protection
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective 2024-02-08 · 47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17
Robocalls using AI-cloned or AI-generated voices are treated like other 'artificial voice' calls: callers need your prior express consent, must identify themselves, and must offer opt-outs for telemarketing. You can personally sue violators for $500 to $1,500 per illegal call.
Frequently asked questions about AI laws in El Paso, Texas
Are there AI laws in El Paso, Texas?
What federal AI rules apply in El Paso?
Does Texas have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Texas?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in El Paso?
How do I report an AI law violation in El Paso?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in El Paso?
Is El Paso regulated by Texas's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in El Paso?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a El Paso ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.