Governmental entities must not use AI for social scoring
Context fileUnder Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Business and Commerce Code Section 551.053
What does it require?
A governmental entity may not develop or deploy an AI system that evaluates or classifies natural persons or groups on the basis of their social behaviour or personal characteristics, with the intent to calculate or assign a social score or similar valuation that leads to detrimental or unfavourable treatment unrelated to the context in which the data was collected, or that is unjustified or disproportionate to the behaviour.
Practical action
Screen agency scoring, eligibility and risk-ranking tools for social-scoring characteristics before procurement or build.
Who does it apply to?
Texas governmental entities developing or deploying AI that scores or classifies people.
Applies from:
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesProcessAI governance lead · once per ai systemProhibited and unacceptable-use screening gate
Serves 7 recorded duties · evidence: Prohibited-use screening record, Screening list and escalation procedure
Screens public-sector scoring tools against the ban.
-
supportsProcessAgency AI officer · annualPublic-sector AI use-case register and algorithmic transparency
Serves 6 recorded duties · evidence: Public AI use-case inventory, Algorithmic transparency statement for one use case, Inventory review and publication sign-off
Register is the population to be screened.
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited-use screening record for scoring tools | record |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every Texas (United States) duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 1.1, MAP 1.1 | Legal requirements and context mapping. | medium |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Clause 6.1.4; Annex A.5.2 | Impact assessment identifies detrimental treatment. | medium |
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Governmental entities must not use AI for social scoring (Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA))”. https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-texas-responsible-ai-governance-act-traiga-government-social-scoring-prohibition (accessed 24 September 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Cite the official text alongside it: HB 149 (89R) history and enrolled text, Texas Legislature Online, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB149.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Do not deploy or provide AI for prohibited practices — EU AI Act, European Union
- Developers and deployers must not use AI to incite self-harm, harm to others or crime — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Texas (United States)
- Governmental entities must not use AI for biometric identification from public data without consent where it infringes rights — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Texas (United States)
- Developers and deployers must not use AI with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Texas (United States)
- Developers and distributors must not build AI intended to produce child sexual abuse material or unlawful sexual deepfakes — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Texas (United States)
Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.