AI governance frameworks: Compare

A learning aid, not legal advice.

Depth, from 0 (least) to 3 (most)0123Under review
Frameworks to compare

Pick two or three frameworks.

Dimension
Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA, HB 149)
binding law
Nature
Depth 3 of 3.

State statute adding chapters 551 to 554 to the Business and Commerce Code, with civil penalties.

HB 149 (enrolled), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code chs. 551 to 554
Where and to whom it applies
Depth 2 of 3.

Anyone who develops or deploys an AI system in Texas; some duties apply only to government entities and health care providers.

HB 149, ch. 551 and ch. 552
Roles addressed
Depth 2 of 3.

Defines developer and deployer; the prohibitions apply to both, with extra duties for government agencies and health care providers.

§ 552.001(1) and (2)
Risk approach
Depth 1 of 3.

No tiers: a list of prohibited intents (manipulation to harm, government social scoring, certain biometric identification, infringing rights, unlawful discrimination, unlawful explicit content).

§§ 552.052 to 552.057
Inventory and documentation
Depth 1 of 3.

No general inventory duty on companies; the Attorney General can demand a system description, data, metrics and monitoring information. State agency AI inventories are amended in the Government Code.

§ 552.103; Gov. Code § 2054.068(b)
Risk or impact assessment
Depth 0 of 3.

No impact assessment duty.

HB 149 (enrolled)
Human oversight
Depth 0 of 3.

No human oversight duty.

HB 149 (enrolled)
Transparency and notices
Depth 2 of 3.

Government agencies disclose AI interaction clearly and in plain language, even if obvious; health care providers disclose AI use by the date the service is first provided, except in emergencies.

§ 552.051
Data governance
Depth 1 of 3.

Government entities may not identify people from biometric data or public images without consent where that infringes a right.

§ 552.054
Testing, robustness and security
Depth 1 of 3.

No testing duty, but finding a violation through adversarial or red-team testing is among the grounds that bar liability.

§ 552.105(e)
Monitoring and incident reporting
Depth 1 of 3.

No incident reporting; the Attorney General runs an online complaint mechanism and may ask about post-deployment monitoring.

§§ 552.102 and 552.103
Assurance and enforcement
Depth 3 of 3.

Attorney General enforcement after a 60-day cure period; penalties USD 10,000 to 12,000 (curable), 80,000 to 200,000 (uncurable), 2,000 to 40,000 per day (continuing). No private right of action.

§§ 552.101, 552.104, 552.105
Effort to implement
Depth 1 of 3.

Light for most companies: document the absence of prohibited intent, keep testing records; more for government and health care disclosure.

HB 149 (enrolled)
Key dates
Depth 3 of 3.

Signed 2025-06-22; in force 2026-01-01. The sandbox allows testing for up to 36 months.

HB 149, section 10 (effective date); § 553.053

A learning aid, not legal advice. Where AI SENTINEL is mentioned, it supports or maps to the dimension; it does not certify anything. Dates are those the official texts state on the date shown.