2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB2733
Effective September 1, 2025, HB2733 expressly adds social-media direct messages and other electronic communications to Texas's barratry statute—the law restricting certain ways of recruiting professional clients.
Official caption: Relating to the prosecution of the criminal offenses of prohibited barratry and solicitation of professional employment.
Official report lists House author(s): Canales. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- Effective September 1, 2025, HB2733 expressly adds social-media direct messages and other electronic communications to Texas's barratry statute—the law restricting certain ways of recruiting professional clients.
- Subsection (a)(2), which requires intent to obtain an economic benefit, now expressly includes electronic solicitation for oneself or another, including false, misleading or deceptive electronic communications.
- Subsection (d) concerns Texas-licensed attorneys, chiropractors, physicians, surgeons, private investigators and other people licensed, certified or registered by a Texas health-care regulator.
- Important limits: HB2733 does not revise Section 38.01(11)'s definition of “solicit employment,” which still says “in person or by telephone” and describes unsolicited, event- or problem-specific professional contact.
- The bill leaves the statutory punishment levels unchanged: (a)/(b) offenses are third-degree felonies; (d) offenses are normally Class A misdemeanors, becoming third-degree felonies with a prior conviction under (d).
- The changes apply only to offenses committed on or after September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
Effective September 1, 2025, HB2733 expressly adds social-media direct messages and other electronic communications to Texas’s barratry statute—the law restricting certain ways of recruiting professional clients. It changes Penal Code 38.12(a)(2) and (d)(2), not every kind of advertising or every profession. Final law
Subsection (a)(2), which requires intent to obtain an economic benefit, now expressly includes electronic solicitation for oneself or another, including false, misleading or deceptive electronic communications. The word “including” does not limit the added electronic language to deceptive messages. The existing law also covers knowingly financing prohibited solicitation and professionals knowingly accepting employment resulting from it. Statutory framework
Subsection (d) concerns Texas-licensed attorneys, chiropractors, physicians, surgeons, private investigators and other people licensed, certified or registered by a Texas health-care regulator. Its text addresses communications intended to obtain professional employment from someone who has not sought that employment, representation, advice or care. HB2733 adds electronic channels to the existing list; it does not create the following conditions anew. The text covers communications that:
- Concern the recipient’s or a relative’s accident/disaster and are provided before the 31st day afterward.
- Concern legal representation in a specific matter when the sender knows or reasonably should know the recipient already has a lawyer in that matter.
- Concern a lawsuit against the recipient or a relative, unless the lawsuit naming that defendant has been on file for more than 31 days.
- Disregard a known or reasonably knowable desire by the injured person or relative not to be contacted about employment; the existing statute presumes that desire when the accident report records it.
- Involve coercion, duress, fraud, overreaching, harassment, intimidation or undue influence, or contain a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive or unfair statement or claim.
Important limits: HB2733 does not revise Section 38.01(11)’s definition of “solicit employment,” which still says “in person or by telephone” and describes unsolicited, event- or problem-specific professional contact. That definition excludes specified family-initiated communications, prior/existing professional-client relationships, qualifying nonprofit legal education and professional advertisements through public media. Section 38.12(c) separately excepts conduct authorized by professional-conduct or court rules from prosecution under (a) or (b), not expressly (d). Read those provisions together; the new electronic wording is not a sound basis for saying every online advertisement or client message is criminal. This briefing identifies the retained wording, rather than claiming a court has resolved its interaction with HB2733. Definitions
The bill leaves the statutory punishment levels unchanged: (a)/(b) offenses are third-degree felonies; (d) offenses are normally Class A misdemeanors, becoming third-degree felonies with a prior conviction under (d). The ordinary ranges are up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine for Class A, and two to ten years in prison with a possible fine up to $10,000 for third-degree felonies. These are statutory ranges, not a prediction of any person’s sentence. Punishment provisions
The changes apply only to offenses committed on or after September 1, 2025. If any element occurred earlier, the act preserves the former law for that offense.
What changed along the way?
The filed, House committee and House-passed texts contained the same operative provisions, adding digital channels in both subsections. The Senate committee substitute added the express reference to “false, misleading, or deceptive” electronic communications in (a)(2); that addition survived in the final law. The complete Senate amendment packet, including the adopted substitute on pages 4–6, matches the enacted provisions. Text versions
The amendment index lists no floor amendments. That does not mean the Senate passed the unchanged House text: the substitute is documented in the Senate packet and official comparison.
The House passed the bill 148–0, with two present but not voting; the Senate passed its version 31–0; the House concurred 131–6, with one present but not voting. The governor signed it June 20, 2025. Official history
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
People approached after accidents or through deceptive digital messages may benefit from the expressly expanded statutory channels. Professionals and those recruiting clients for them need to account for electronic communications as well as existing restrictions and exceptions. Enforcement can impose prosecution, defense and correctional costs; the act does not appropriate a new enforcement budget or calculate private compliance costs.
The May 21 final fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal effect and assumes no significant local enforcement, prosecution, supervision or confinement costs. It gives no quantified multiyear estimate. The May 15 criminal-justice impact statement recognizes possible additional correctional demand but expects it not to be significant; its fiscal-year-2024 data report no arrests, referrals, supervision placements or adult/juvenile correctional admissions for the offense. That is not proof that prohibited solicitation never occurred.
This is an explanation of the enacted text, not advice that every listed restriction is enforceable against every communication. Earlier versions have been litigated. In McKinley v. Abbott (2011), the Fifth Circuit rejected a facial free-speech challenge to the accident-victim restriction, while dismissing a separate challenge concerning an older arrest/summons provision as moot in light of nonenforcement assurances. That older provision is not the current lawsuit wording. The decision predates HB2733 and does not decide the new electronic-language/definition question. Application to a particular message requires the facts, applicable professional rules and relevant judicial decisions.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.