According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3133 is not expected to result in significant fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The analysis indicates that any administrative or enforcement responsibilities created by the bill—such as monitoring compliance or responding to related legal issues—can be absorbed within the existing capacities and budgets of relevant state agencies, including the Office of the Attorney General​.

For local governments, the bill similarly presents no anticipated fiscal impact. It does not impose new mandates, reporting requirements, or enforcement obligations on cities, counties, or local law enforcement entities. The regulatory burden is placed on social media platforms operating within the state, and enforcement mechanisms rest largely within state-level oversight, limiting any trickle-down financial consequences.

In summary, HB 3133 is designed to operate within the current administrative framework, and its implementation is not projected to require additional state appropriations or local government expenditures.

HB 3133 attempts to address the serious and evolving problem of non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfake content by requiring social media platforms to promptly respond to user complaints, remove harmful content, and take steps to prevent its reappearance. While the intention to protect individuals—particularly victims of digital sexual exploitation—is commendable, the bill, as written, raises substantial concerns that outweigh its benefits.

First, the bill lacks adequate safeguards for due process and free expression. It requires platforms to remove content reported as “explicit deep fake material” within 48 hours, before any investigation is complete, and does not require the platform to notify the user who posted the content or provide them an opportunity to appeal. This approach opens the door for misuse, including malicious or politically motivated takedown requests, and lacks penalties for false reporting. Critics of similar federal legislation have pointed out that such provisions risk enabling censorship of lawful content, satire, or speech that is merely controversial rather than harmful.

Second, HB 3133 places a significant and potentially disproportionate regulatory burden on private platforms, particularly smaller or emerging companies. The mandates to respond within strict deadlines, investigate flagged content within 30 to 60 days, and implement preventative reposting controls will likely require new compliance infrastructure, legal review processes, and content moderation policies. The bill does not account for platform size, resource constraints, or existing federal compliance efforts. Without flexibility or safe harbor protections, this one-size-fits-all model risks stifling innovation and discouraging market participation.

Third, while the bill does not expand government agencies or create new criminal penalties, it introduces a substantial regulatory mandate enforced through the private sector—effectively expanding the state’s influence over content moderation practices without direct accountability. This indirect form of regulation, especially when it affects speech and expression online, deserves careful scrutiny. The absence of judicial oversight or procedural transparency further amplifies these concerns.

Finally, in light of parallel efforts at the federal level, including the proposed “Take It Down Act,” Texas lawmakers should be cautious about layering state-specific mandates onto an already complex and sensitive legal landscape. There is broad agreement that victims need better tools to protect themselves, but HB 3133’s flaws—its rigidity, lack of procedural fairness, and potential for abuse—undermine its worthy goals. A better solution would involve narrowly tailored legislation developed in coordination with privacy advocates, constitutional scholars, and technology stakeholders.

The bill does not strike the necessary balance between protecting individuals from digital exploitation and preserving foundational principles such as due process, free speech, and limited government. Further deliberation and targeted amendment are necessary to ensure any legislation in this area is both effective and constitutionally sound. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3133.

• Individual Liberty: HB 3133 poses a threat to individual liberty, particularly freedom of expression and due process. The bill requires social media platforms to remove flagged content labeled as “explicit deep fake material” immediately—before a full investigation is complete—and explicitly exempts platforms from notifying the user or offering a chance to appeal. This can result in lawful content being suppressed without recourse, and the bill lacks safeguards against malicious or false reports. The suppression of protected speech, particularly without judicial oversight or meaningful procedural checks, undermines First Amendment liberties and sets a precedent for content-based takedowns driven by accusation rather than verification.
• Personal Responsibility: On one hand, the bill promotes personal responsibility by enabling individuals to report harmful content and empowering platforms to take swift action. However, it does not establish any consequences for false or bad-faith reporting. Without penalties for abuse or misuse of the complaint system, the bill risks enabling irresponsibility—inviting manipulation, censorship, or harassment through false takedown requests. A system rooted in responsibility must hold both platforms and users accountable, but this bill only targets one side of that equation.
• Free Enterprise: HB 3133 imposes a substantial regulatory burden on private businesses, particularly social media platforms. It mandates operational policies, compliance timelines (48-hour acknowledgment and 30–60 day investigations), and requires technological tools to prevent reposting of flagged material. These burdens may be manageable for large tech companies but are likely to be crippling for small or emerging platforms, effectively discouraging competition and innovation in the tech space. The bill lacks proportionality and fails to consider scalability, thereby restricting the freedom of private entities to operate without excessive government-mandated processes.
• Private Property Rights: Digital platforms are, in effect, private property, and platform operators traditionally retain the right to determine content moderation standards under their terms of service. HB 3133 compels specific moderation actions, removing discretion from platform owners about how to handle user content. It mandates removal of flagged material and prevents its re-upload—even before it is fully verified as harmful—and thus encroaches on the editorial autonomy of these private businesses. Such government interference in how private entities manage their digital property contradicts this liberty principle.
• Limited Government: Although the bill does not expand the physical size of government, it significantly expands the scope of government influence over private business operations. By dictating how and when content must be removed and shielding these decisions from challenge, the state effectively inserts itself into digital content governance. Moreover, HB 3133 does not include sunset clauses, judicial review mechanisms, or clear boundaries for enforcement, further drifting from the ideal of a restrained, narrowly focused government role.