According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1960 would have a modest fiscal impact on the state budget, primarily due to new administrative responsibilities placed on the Texas Secretary of State (SOS). The bill requires the SOS to create and maintain a public registration database for postmortem digital replication rights, which would allow right holders to register claims on behalf of deceased individuals. This system would facilitate the enforcement of digital replication rights—newly recognized under the bill as transferable property rights.

To implement this mandate, the SOS would incur an initial one-time technology cost of $600,000 in the Fiscal Year 2026 to build the necessary application infrastructure. Additionally, the agency projects annual ongoing costs of $67,658 for one full-time employee (a License and Permit Specialist III) to manage filings and maintain the public directory. Over the first biennium (FY 2026–2027), the total estimated cost is $743,301 from the General Revenue Fund.

The bill authorizes the SOS to collect a filing fee from registrants to help offset administrative costs, but since the number of anticipated filings is unknown, the potential revenue from fees cannot yet be estimated. Other key state agencies—including the Office of the Attorney General, Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Office of Court Administration—either reported no significant fiscal impact or indicated that any costs could be absorbed within existing resources. Local governments are not expected to face material fiscal implications from this legislation​.

Overall, while SB 1960 introduces new administrative responsibilities and startup costs, its fiscal impact is relatively limited and potentially offset in the long term through fee collection.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1960 as it provides essential legal protections in the evolving digital age while respecting constitutional liberties and free expression. The bill establishes digital replication rights as property rights, empowering individuals and their heirs to control the use of their voice and visual likeness—especially in response to the rise of AI-generated deepfakes and manipulated media. It creates a private cause of action for unauthorized use, authorizes postmortem transfers of rights, and tasks the Secretary of State with managing a voluntary registration system. These protections bolster personal autonomy, reinforce property rights, and hold bad actors accountable without imposing burdensome state enforcement.

Importantly, the bill addresses a common concern about potential overreach—whether satire, parody, or artistic expression could be unintentionally restricted. SB 1960 explicitly provides a safe harbor for these expressive uses. Under Section 651.054, individuals may use a digital replica without consent if the purpose is parody, satire, criticism, commentary, news reporting, or education. These exemptions ensure that constitutionally protected speech remains untouched, affirming the bill’s commitment to preserving the First Amendment. The only notable exception is the use of digital replicas to depict sexual conduct without consent, which the bill reasonably excludes from protection to prevent exploitation.

This careful drafting reflects a thoughtful balance between protecting individuals from digital identity theft and upholding the liberty to engage in free artistic, comedic, or journalistic expression. By avoiding vague language and carving out specific protected uses, SB 1960 prevents unintended censorship while providing a clear framework for rights holders to pursue justice when misused. Moreover, its limited fiscal footprint—primarily a manageable administrative cost to the Secretary of State—and reliance on private enforcement further ensure that government intrusion is minimal and targeted.

In total, SB 1960 strengthens key liberty principles, including individual liberty, private property rights, and personal responsibility, while safeguarding creative freedoms. Its narrowly tailored scope and built-in exceptions for expressive content make it a responsible, necessary measure that deserves support in the face of rapidly advancing digital technologies.

• Individual Liberty: The bill affirms that a person’s voice and visual likeness are intrinsic to their identity and deserving of legal protection. It gives individuals the exclusive right to control how their likeness is digitally replicated and used—protecting against unauthorized deepfakes or AI-generated impersonations. This upholds the principle that individuals should have the freedom to define and protect their identity, including after death through their estate or heirs. It also creates a pathway for fast removal of unauthorized content online, reinforcing practical enforcement of that liberty.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill creates a system of accountability for creators, distributors, and platforms who use someone’s likeness without permission. By introducing civil liability (including statutory and punitive damages), the bill encourages ethical behavior in the digital media and tech industries. This advances the principle that freedom must be paired with responsibility, especially in a landscape where new technologies make misuse of identity easy and profitable.

• Free Enterprise: While the bill regulates the commercial use of digital replicas, it does not ban or overregulate the practice—it simply requires consent and licensing. This allows a legitimate market to form around the licensing of likeness rights (e.g., for entertainers, influencers, estates of public figures) while keeping abusive or exploitative practices in check. The bill’s exceptions for satire, education, and commentary ensure that innovation and creativity in digital media are not stifled. This creates a fairer playing field and supports voluntary, contractual enterprise.

• Private Property Rights: By codifying digital replication rights as transferable, inheritable property rights, the bill reinforces one of the most fundamental Texas values. Individuals can license or bequeath these rights by contract or testamentary instrument, ensuring control doesn’t disappear at death. This extends Texas’s tradition of strong property rights into the digital realm—acknowledging that identity and likeness have real economic and personal value in modern markets.

• Limited Government: The bill avoids overregulation. Instead of creating a new enforcement agency or broad regulatory regime, it relies on private causes of action and voluntary registration. The only state function is a modest administrative role for the Secretary of State in maintaining a postmortem rights directory, funded by optional filing fees. There is no criminal enforcement mechanism, and the bill’s narrowly tailored definitions prevent regulatory overreach. This keeps government involvement targeted and restrained.