Relating to the disclosure of information with regard to artificial intelligence.
Summary
SB 668 would create a new Chapter 2003 in the Texas Business & Commerce Code requiring certain large companies that use artificial intelligence to provide services to Texas individuals to publicly disclose information about the AI models they use. The bill defines artificial intelligence broadly and applies only to entities that either generated at least $100 billion in total revenue or are more than 25 percent owned by such an entity. Covered businesses would have to post on a website or other electronically accessible location the names of their AI models, brief descriptions of each model’s functions and purposes, and information about third-party input used to develop or modify those models.
The disclosure requirements also extend to identifying third parties that contributed input to an AI model, describing the specific input provided, and listing changes made to the model based on that input. The bill excludes from the “third party” definition certain users who provide feedback in their personal capacity based on their own experience with the service. It also prohibits retaliation against individuals who report suspected violations in good faith and authorizes the attorney general to access records needed to assess compliance.
Impact
The bill would add a new consumer-disclosure and enforcement framework to Texas law, specifically within the Business & Commerce Code. Violations would be treated as deceptive trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, making them actionable under that existing enforcement scheme and allowing cumulative remedies. The attorney general would gain authority to review records for compliance and issue reports to government officials, and the law would take effect September 1, 2025 if enacted. The practical effect would be to impose transparency obligations primarily on very large AI providers or companies controlled by them, especially those offering AI-assisted services related to information gathering, content generation, lending, underwriting, risk assessment, investing, or hiring.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited voting history provided, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and accountability bill rather than a restriction on AI use. The absence of recorded yeas and nays in the available vote entries suggests no substantive floor opposition is reflected in the provided history, but there is also no committee testimony to gauge broader support or criticism. Overall, the bill’s tone is regulatory and consumer-protective, with an emphasis on disclosure, oversight, and anti-retaliation protections.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the scope and burden of the disclosure mandate, especially for large technology companies that would have to identify AI models, summarize their purposes, and disclose third-party contributions and model changes. Another likely issue is the bill’s narrow applicability to entities with $100 billion in revenue or majority ownership by such entities, which may be seen as either appropriately targeted at major AI firms or as underinclusive because it excludes smaller providers. Privacy, trade secret, and operational concerns may also arise from requiring public disclosure of model inputs and modifications, while supporters would likely emphasize consumer transparency, accountability, and protection against undisclosed AI use in sensitive decisions such as lending and hiring.
Requires school districts to provide instruction on artificial intelligence; requires Secretary of Higher Education to develop artificial intelligence model curricula.