Texas SB 1188 - Healthcare AI Practitioner Disclosure
Effective date
Penalty
Authorizes civil penalties for violations under Texas enforcement authority tied to electronic health record compliance obligations. Enforced by state regula…
Obligations mapped
Tracked
Overview
Requires healthcare providers using AI-enabled clinical support features in electronic health record workflows to disclose AI involvement in clinical decision support contexts. Applies to AI-assisted diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and clinical support pathways in covered settings.
This is an AI-specific state law.
See if this regulation applies to your company with the free exposure scan.
Who this applies to
This regulation applies to the following roles:
- Deployers and users of covered AI systems and tools
- Organizations operating in Texas
This regulation applies to companies that use or deploy AI tools and systems built by other vendors. If your company uses AI-powered products in the areas listed below, this regulation may apply to you.
See enrolled statute text at the official source.
AI categories covered
- Healthcare AI
Specific AI use cases:
- clinical decision support
- Diagnostic and clinical AI
What this requires you to do
Detailed obligation packs are not yet mapped for this entry in XIRA. Obligation areas from the catalog are listed below.
What this requires you to do
Disclosure to users required
Disclose AI use. Make it clear to users when they are interacting with AI-generated content or AI-driven systems.
Transparency notice required
Provide transparency notices. Inform affected individuals that AI is being used and how it influences decisions.
Record-keeping required
Maintain records. Keep documentation of your AI systems, decisions made, and compliance activities.
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.
Enforcement and penalties
Authorizes civil penalties for violations under Texas enforcement authority tied to electronic health record compliance obligations. Enforced by state regulators under the enrolled statute.
Penalty amounts are based on statutory text and may be subject to adjustment, judicial interpretation, or enforcement discretion.
Related regulations
- UpcomingAI-Specific
Washington SB 5395 (AI in Health Insurance Prior Authorization)
Enacted as Chapter 157, Laws of 2026; Governor signed March 23, 2026; effective June 11, 2026. AI tools may be used to approve prior authorization requests but may not deny care without human review by a licensed physician or health professional. Where applicable, managed care organizations may need to report the percentage of total denials aided by AI. Periodic performance reviews of AI tools may be required for accuracy and reliability.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare AI Deceptive Terms Act (AB 489)
AB 3030 (2024) requires healthcare providers to disclose generative AI use to patients and in records. AB 489 (2025) extends similar duties to technology developers and deployers whose healthcare AI communicates with patients or presents as credentialed care. It bars false claims of professional licenses or credentials and requires clear disclosures in healthcare settings.
Effective
- In EffectSector-Specific
Maryland Healthcare AI Utilization Review (HB 820)
May apply to AI tools used in healthcare coverage decisions, calling for determinations based on individual patient data rather than group datasets. Where applicable, final utilization review decisions may need to be made by a physician in the same specialty. Where applicable, carriers may need to report whether AI was used in adverse decisions. Does not ban AI in healthcare: where applicable it may require AI to use individual patient data and may mandate human physician final decisions.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
Texas Nonconsensual Intimate Deepfakes (SB 441)
Criminalizes creating and distributing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. Creates civil liability for victims. Platforms must take down reported content within 72 hours. Consent to create an image does not constitute consent to share it.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
Texas Government AI Ethics and Oversight (SB 1964)
Requires Texas state agencies and local governments to inventory AI systems, adopt an AI code of ethics aligned with NIST AI RMF, conduct impact assessments for AI that autonomously influences consequential decisions, and disclose AI use to affected individuals. Applies to government entities only, not the private sector.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
Texas TRAIGA (Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, HB 149)
Texas RAIGA (HB 149) prohibits AI systems from intentionally manipulating behavior to cause harm, infringing constitutional rights, or discriminating against protected classes. Where applicable, government agencies may need to disclose AI interactions. Updates biometric consent for AI training data. Creates a regulatory sandbox program. AG exclusive enforcement with 60-day cure period. Intent-based liability standard (no disparate impact).
Effective
- In EffectPrivacy ADM
Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, Profiling Provisions (HB 4)
Texas comprehensive privacy law with profiling provisions. Requires data protection assessments for profiling that presents a risk of harm. Consumer opt-out for profiling producing legal or similarly significant effects, targeted advertising, and sale of personal data. Universal opt-out mechanism required for covered profiling opt-outs. Broad applicability: no revenue or data volume thresholds (unlike many state privacy laws). Small businesses as defined by the SBA are exempt. The 30-day cure period is permanent with no sunset. Profiling opt-out applies to decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, not all profiling.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
Texas TRAIGA Biometric and AI Training Amendments (HB 149, 89th Legislature)
Amends the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) and related Business and Commerce Code provisions for biometric data used with AI. Relaxes CUBI for AI training with a carveout for publicly available data and adds anti-scraping consent requirements for biometric identifiers. Enforced under the same HB 149 TRAIGA framework as the core act: intent-based liability, 60-day cure, preemption of local AI rules, and the statutory penalties and safe harbors that apply to TRAIGA generally.
Effective
Texas AI regulation guide lists every tracked rule for this jurisdiction with timelines and obligation tallies.
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.