2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB581

HB581 extends Texas's civil regulatory framework for sexual material harmful to minors to certain publicly available creation tools and applications.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of artificial sexual material harmful to minors.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): González, Mary, Lalani, Garcia, Linda. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

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.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB581 extends Texas’s civil regulatory framework for sexual material harmful to minors to certain publicly available creation tools and applications. A covered commercial operator must verify users are at least 18 using the statutory identification or commercial age-verification methods. The covered artificial material involves a recognizable actual person and must meet the chapter’s legal definition of material harmful to minors; this is not a ban on all AI images or all depictions of adults. Signed June 20, 2025, the bill took effect September 1, 2025. Final law; history.

Covered operators must also ensure that a person used as a source for the artificial material is 18 or older and consented to the use of that person’s face and body. An important exception applies to both this source-person requirement and the new tool-access age check: an operator must prohibit generation of the covered artificial material in terms or policies acknowledged before access, and take affirmative technological steps to limit its creation. The act gives examples such as effective reporting, detection and filtering; a policy statement alone does not meet both conditions.

Businesses and third parties performing the required age checks may not retain users’ identifying information. The act extends the existing protection for internet-access, search and cloud providers that merely connect users to content outside their control and are not responsible for creating it. The chapter also retains its bona fide news/public-interest exception. Definitions, exceptions and enforcement framework.

The attorney general can seek an injunction, civil penalties and other appropriate relief for knowing violations under the existing enforcement procedure. Listed maximum penalties remain tied to particular conditions: up to $10,000 per day for violating age-verification requirements, $10,000 per instance of prohibited identifying-information retention, and an additional amount up to $250,000 when a minor gains access because of an age-verification violation. The bill adds the source-person provision to the enforcement section’s cross-reference, but does not separately assign a flat dollar penalty to every lack-of-consent incident. It does not create a new criminal offense through this act.

What changed along the way?

The introduced, House committee, engrossed and Senate committee texts contained the new age-check and source-person duties without the technological-safeguards exception. Hughes’s sole adopted Senate floor amendment added that exception to both duties and updated the limited protection for connection/search/cloud providers. Those changes appear in the enrolled law after House concurrence May 28; a summary of the original bill alone would overstate the final duties. Introduced text; amendment index; adopted Senate amendment.

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?

The rules seek to limit minors’ access to covered creation tools and protect actual people used as sources. Operators may incur age-checking, consent-verification, moderation or filtering costs; adult users may face added verification steps. The identifying-information retention ban addresses a privacy risk associated with those checks. The sources do not quantify compliance costs, prevented misuse or the effectiveness of particular safeguards.

The Legislative Budget Board anticipated no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumed government implementation could use existing resources. It did not measure private technology or compliance costs. Latest indexed fiscal note, May 23, 2025.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.