InsureAI Wire

State AI Regulation Tracker

Texas

Reviewed Aug 18, 2026 Markdown →

Texas regulates insurer AI under its own bulletin, Bulletin B-0003-26, rather than the NAIC model bulletin. Every place its text departs from the NAIC model bulletin, Dec 2023 is set out below, with the evidence on both sides.

On this page

What's different

The national model vs Texas
Point-by-point comparison of the NAIC model bulletin and Texas's own text. Each row links to the evidence on both sides.
NAIC model Texas
Human review — A person must approve consequential decisions
AI in utilisation review — Statute bans AI adverse determinations
Written AI programme A written programme of record —
Vendors and outside data A section of its own One clause, no contract terms
Who it addresses Insurers holding a certificate Every regulated entity, agents and adjusters too
At examination Expect to be asked Furnish on request; four named areas

Click a row for the evidence on both sides. An em dash means that instrument says nothing on the point.

Related coverage

3 selected items · Reviewed Aug 24, 2026

What we compared it with

Reviewed Aug 18, 2026

Texas has two instruments and the NAIC map points at the older one. B-0036-20 (2020) is about the accuracy of third-party data; the AI bulletin is B-0003-26, issued June 2026. Its opening paragraph tracks the model bulletin almost word for word, then goes its own way: it names the NAIC's 2020 AI Principles as its guide, not the 2023 model text.

Every difference, with both texts

6 found

Texas puts a person in the loop by rule. Where AI makes a consequential decision, someone has to review it and agree with it before anything happens to the customer.

Show the exact wording Hide the exact wording

Not in the model bulletin

The model bulletin never requires human review: "consequential" 0 hits and the phrase "review and agree" 0 hits (word-boundary counts over the 9-page, 28,577-character text, pypdf, 2026-08-18). It treats "the extent to which humans are involved in the final decision-making process" as one of five factors that set how strong controls should be (Section 3 introduction, pp.4-5).

Texas B-0003-26, Guidance and Expectations

If a regulated entity uses AI to make a consequential decision, TDI expects a person to review and agree with all decisions before action is taken.

Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

One Texas statute bans the use case outright: a utilisation review agent may not use AI to make an adverse determination. The bulletin lists it among the laws that already bind you.

Applies only to health plans.

Show the exact wording Hide the exact wording

Not in the model bulletin

The model bulletin bans no use of the technology anywhere: "utilization review" 0 hits, "adverse determination" 0 hits, and "prohibit" appears only in its recital of unfair trade practice law. pypdf, 2026-08-18.

Texas B-0003-26, Legislative Authority

Utilization Review Agents: Texas Insurance Code Chapter 4201, concerning Utilization Review Agents, prohibits using AI to make an adverse determination.

Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

The centrepiece of the model bulletin is absent. Texas asks for controls, governance and testing in general terms, but never for a written programme of record.

Show the exact wording Hide the exact wording

NAIC model bulletin Section 3, p.4

all Insurers authorized to do business in this state are expected to develop, implement, and maintain a written program (an "AIS Program") for the responsible use of AI Systems that make, or support decisions related to regulated insurance practices.

Not in Texas's text

The word "program" does not appear anywhere in B-0003-26 (0 hits across 7,501 characters of body text, word-boundary regex, 2026-08-18), nor do "inventory" (0) or "attestation" (0). Texas closes with the model's own disclaimer instead: its goal "is not to prescribe specific practices or documentation requirements".

Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

Where the model devotes a section to third-party data and systems, Texas extends its expectations to third parties in a single clause and leaves the mechanics to you.

Show the exact wording Hide the exact wording

NAIC model bulletin §4.1, p.7

Due diligence and the methods employed by the Insurer to assess the third party and its data or AI Systems acquired from the third party to ensure that decisions made or supported from such AI Systems that could lead to Adverse Consumer Outcomes will meet the legal standards imposed on the Insurer itself.

Texas B-0003-26, opening

These expectations extend to any third party working with a regulated entity and are designed to protect Texans' privacy and interests, ensure freedom from unfair discrimination, and promote the knowledge and development of ethical AI systems.

"third party" appears once in B-0003-26, in the clause quoted here (word-boundary count over 7,501 characters, 2026-08-18). There are no contract terms, no audit rights and no cooperation clause, all of which the model sets out at §4.2.

Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

Texas addresses every regulated entity, plus their agents and representatives. The model bulletin speaks to insurers holding a certificate of authority and to nobody else.

Show the exact wording Hide the exact wording

NAIC model bulletin Section 1, p.1

to remind all Insurers that hold certificates of authority to do business in the state that decisions or actions impacting consumers that are made or supported by advanced analytical and computational technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems … must comply with all applicable insurance laws and regulations.

Texas B-0003-26, header

To: All regulated entities and their agents and representatives

The model bulletin never addresses the distribution chain: "agent" 0 hits and "adjuster" 0 hits (word-boundary counts, pypdf, 2026-08-18). Texas cites the agent and adjuster licensing chapters (4001 and 4101) among the laws that apply.

Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

Both texts land in the same place at examination: produce what you have when asked. Texas names the four areas its questions will cover.

Show the exact wording Hide the exact wording

NAIC model bulletin SECTION 4, p.7

Regardless of the existence or scope of a written AIS Program, in the context of an investigation or market conduct action, an Insurer can expect to be asked about its development, deployment, and use of AI Systems, or any specific Predictive Model, AI System or application and its outcomes

Texas B-0003-26, Guidance and Expectations

All regulated entities using AI should be able to furnish procedures and protections upon request by TDI. Regulated entities should expect TDI's monitoring of AI procedures and protections to include inquiries concerning governance frameworks, risk management, data and privacy protections, and internal controls.

Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

What the regulator asks for

2 items
  • documentation on-request

    Be able to hand over your AI procedures and protections when TDI asks. Questions will cover governance, risk management, data and privacy, and internal controls.

    Any regulated entity using AI

    B-0003-26, Guidance and Expectations · read it · hide
    All regulated entities using AI should be able to furnish procedures and protections upon request by TDI. Regulated entities should expect TDI's monitoring of AI procedures and protections to include inquiries concerning governance frameworks, risk management, data and privacy protections, and internal controls.

    Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

  • filing continuous

    Product filings are one of the two channels TDI says it will use to watch AI, alongside examinations. What you put in a filing is where the questions start.

    Any regulated entity filing products in Texas

    B-0003-26, Guidance and Expectations · read it · hide
    TDI will monitor the use of AI through examinations and product filings. TDI also welcomes any complaints from consumers regarding the use of AI and will investigate accordingly.

    Bulletin B-0003-26 · retrieved 2026-08-18

The NAIC's examination tool. Texas is not among the twelve states trialling the NAIC's AI Systems Evaluation Tool. Its own examinations and product filings are what apply instead. Source ↗

If you write in more than one state

Texas is the state where the obligation is a decision rule rather than a document. Nothing is filed and no programme is demanded, but a person has to review and agree with every consequential AI decision before it reaches the customer. That is a change to how the process runs, not to what is written down about it. It also reaches further down the chain than any other state here: agents and adjusters are addressed directly, so a carrier's answer has to cover the people selling and adjusting as well as the models.

Based on

Sources read

Not legal advice. How this tracker is sourced →

Compare with another state

California Own rules 6 differences · 2 standing obligations Colorado Own rules 9 differences · 5 standing obligations New York Own rules 9 differences · 6 standing obligations

Or go back to the table of all 51 jurisdictions.