Texas Senate Bill SB 2567

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/13/25

Caption

Relating to the deceptive trade practice of failure to disclose information regarding the use of artificial intelligence system or algorithmic pricing systems for setting of price.

Summary

SB 2567 amends the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act to add a new prohibited practice: failing to disclose information about the use of an artificial intelligence system or an algorithmic pricing system when setting a price. The bill defines “artificial intelligence system” broadly to include machine learning and related technologies used to train statistical models for tasks associated with human intelligence, and defines “algorithmic pricing systems” as AI systems that generate pricing recommendations. In practical terms, the bill would make nondisclosure of AI-driven or algorithmically influenced pricing a deceptive trade practice under the Business & Commerce Code. That means consumers could potentially pursue DTPA remedies when a seller uses these systems to set prices without disclosure, and businesses using such systems would need to evaluate whether and how to inform customers about their use. The change applies only to conduct occurring on or after the bill’s effective date, September 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill would amend Section 17.46(b) of the Business & Commerce Code by adding a new enumerated deceptive act, expanding the list of conduct that can trigger liability under Texas consumer protection law. It does not create a separate regulatory scheme for AI pricing, but instead folds disclosure obligations into existing DTPA enforcement and remedies. Businesses that use AI or algorithmic pricing tools in consumer transactions would be the primary affected parties, while consumers would gain a new basis for alleging deceptive nondisclosure.

Sentiment

The available record shows the bill was referred to the Senate Business & Commerce Committee and there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at consumer transparency and accountability in pricing, suggesting a consumer-protection orientation rather than a punitive one. Because no discussion or vote history is available, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the scope and practicality of the disclosure requirement. Supporters would likely view the bill as a transparency measure that helps consumers understand when prices may be influenced by AI or algorithmic systems, while opponents may argue that the definitions are broad, that disclosure could be difficult to implement consistently, or that the requirement could burden common pricing technologies used in retail, services, and online commerce. Another likely issue is whether the bill could create uncertainty about what level of AI involvement in pricing triggers disclosure.