List of all gen AI csam cases know to date in texas
Executive summary
There are no publicly documented prosecutions in Texas that have been brought solely for AI‑generated child sexual abuse material (AIG‑CSAM) according to available reporting and expert summaries; Texas legislators and state law enforcement have acknowledged gaps and moved to update statutes, but reporting does not identify any completed Texas cases focused exclusively on synthetic CSAM [1] [2] [3].
1. What the record shows: no Texas cases brought exclusively for AI‑generated CSAM
Digital‑forensics specialists and policy researchers report that, as of the sources reviewed, investigators and prosecutors have not yet litigated a case in which the charged offense rested solely on wholly synthetic or AI‑only CSAM; commentators and the Wilson Center quote a forensic expert saying “at this point, we have not had a single case that has exclusively considered AI‑generated CSAM” [1], and Thorn and other advocates note federal prosecutions have generally treated AI‑tainted material under existing CSAM statutes rather than as a distinct, standalone crime [4].
2. Why Texas matters: laws, bills, and statutory gaps that shape prosecutions
Texas already prosecutes CSAM under traditional statutes and has been actively considering statutory updates to address AI realities — for example, state senators introduced bills that would define “computer‑generated child” and create criminal and civil remedies for non‑consensual computer‑generated explicit images, and the legislature and law‑enforcement officials have openly said realistic AI CSAM has become more common and creates investigative challenges when no real child can be identified [2] [3]; at the same time, national trackers and advocacy groups list Texas among states that criminalize AI‑generated or computer‑edited CSAM as of mid‑2025, reflecting legislative activity even where case law is sparse [5].
3. Enforcement reality: federal law, resources, and investigative limits
Federal statutes already cover many scenarios that involve AI‑tainted CSAM — prosecutors can pursue production, possession, and distribution charges where an image depicts a real child or where other statutory elements are met — but experts and nonprofits observe gaps and resource strains when content is synthetic, the identity of a victim is absent, and hash‑matching fails against novel synthetic material; advocacy groups and law‑enforcement interviews emphasize that AIG‑CSAM increases workload and complicates victim‑identification, leaving prosecutors to adapt existing tools rather than rely on a long history of precedent specific to purely synthetic imagery [4] [6] [1].
4. State policy response and regulatory tensions that could matter more than prosecutions
Texas’s recent and pending policy moves — including the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) with intent‑based civil liability for AI misuse, new AI oversight laws effective 2026, and legislative attempts to codify definitions of computer‑generated minors — show the state is privileging regulatory and civil enforcement levers alongside criminal statutes; some commentators flag provisions like notice‑and‑cure and civil‑only penalties in certain AI statutes that could create tensions between civil regulatory regimes and criminal enforcement for CSAM [7] [8] [9].
5. What reporting does not show and why that matters
The sources reviewed do not produce a list of Texas prosecutions brought solely for AI‑generated CSAM, nor do they document any Texas conviction where the accused was prosecuted exclusively for synthetic images without an identifiable real‑world victim; that absence in reporting may reflect a real gap in prosecutions, prosecutorial reliance on traditional CSAM charges in mixed cases, or limits in public reporting — the available sources explicitly caution that federal and state efforts are still catching up to the technology and investigative needs [1] [4] [2].