Privacy law — federal vs. Texas
The standard (federal) privacy law, and where Texas replaces, adds to, fills a gap in, or is limited by it. Click a topic to open the two statutes side by side, then pull the cases interpreting them. Federal privacy law is sectoral — there is no single comprehensive federal privacy statute — which is exactly why the states matter. Informational only, not legal advice.
Comprehensive consumer privacy ◆ Texas fills a gap
There is no comprehensive federal consumer-privacy statute — the FTC Act’s "unfair or deceptive practices" power (15 U.S.C. § 45) is the only general federal backstop. Texas enacted its own comprehensive law, the TDPSA. Notably it has no revenue threshold but exempts small businesses (by the U.S. SBA definition) — a Texas-specific twist. AG-enforced, with a 30-day cure period.
15 U.S.C. § 45Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 541Data-breach notification ◆ Texas fills a gap
There is no general federal data-breach-notification statute — only sector fragments (e.g. the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule). Texas supplies the general rule through its Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act, which carries BOTH the data-safeguard duty (§ 521.052) and the breach-notice requirement (§ 521.053) in the same chapter.
45 C.F.R. §§ 164.400–414 (HIPAA breach rule, health sector only)Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 521 (§§ 521.052, 521.053)Health / medical-records privacy ▲ Texas goes further
HIPAA is the federal floor for protected health information. Texas goes further: its Medical Records Privacy Act defines "covered entity" far more broadly — essentially anyone who obtains, stores, or uses PHI, not just HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates — and adds training and stricter consent duties.
Cases interpreting this (live · CourtListener)
*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr
ACCEPTED 15-24-00098-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/11/2025 2:02 PM Cause No. 15-24-00098-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE _______________________________________________________ CLERK
212 S.W.3d 648 (2006) Greg ABBOTT, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION, Appellee. No. 03-04-00743-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. August 30, 2006. *651 Jason D. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, Open Records Litigation, Adm. Law Division, Austin, for
Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
2020 IL App (1st) 190925 FIRST DISTRICT FOURTH DIVISION June 18, 2020 No. 1-19-0925 ) Appeal from the DR. JUDY KING,
FILED 15-0092 8/4/2015 3:59:31 PM tex-6352761 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
ORDER DAVID HITTNER, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Fedex Corporation and for Partial Summary Judgment on Behalf of Federal Express Corporation. Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. /. BACKGROUND
ACCEPTED 03-15-00226-CV 5697644 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0433-14 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. HAYDEN HUSE, Appellee ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS LUBBOCK COUNTY Y EARY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which K ELL
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00743-CV Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00743-CV Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant v. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GV400344, HONORABLE PATRICK KEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING
[Cite as Dissell v. Cleveland, 2018-Ohio-5444.] RACHEL L. DISSELL Case No. 2017-00855PQ Requester Special Master Jeffery W. Clark v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CITY OF CLEVELAND, Respondent {¶1} Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, provides a remedy for production of records under R.C. 2743.75 if the court of claims determines that a public office ha
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN 444444444444444444444444444 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING 444444444444444444444444444 NO. 03-04-00743-CV Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant v. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Appellee
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON MOTION FOR REHEARING NO. 03-04-00743-CV
WINFREE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION We granted this petition for review to consider how the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)-establishing medical privacy standards with specific exceptions-affected our personal injury case law allowing a defendant ex parte contact with a plaintiff's doctors as a method
September 17, 2026 The Honorable Joe Gonzales Bexar County Criminal District Attorney Paul Elizondo Tower 101 West Nueva San Antonio, Texas 78205 Opinion No. KP-0530 Re: House Bill 4490 and the confidentiality of next of kin information under Article 49.25 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (RQ-0617-KP) Dear Mr. Gonzales: You ask five questions regarding a county medical examiner’s duty under the Public Infor
Affirm and Opinion Filed October 27, 2020 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01385-CR No. 05-19-01386-CR No. 05-19-01387-CR ANDY CONSUELO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On
OPINION SHARON G. LEE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK and WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JJ„ joined. GARY R. WADE, C.J., and JANICE M. HOLDER, J., filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. More than sixty days before filing suit, the plaintiff gave written notice to the potential defendants of her healthcare liability claim ag
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS JOHN CORNYN May 24,2002 Mr. Jim Loyd Opinion No. JC-0508 Executive Director Texas Health Care Information Council Re: Whether a hospital is authorized to report 206 East Ninth Street, Suite 19.140 information required by chapter 108, Health and Austin, Texas 78701
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Those who are entrusted with details about an individual’s health care should guard against even the inadvertent disclosure of that confidential information. Those duties were allegedly breached in this case when hackers secured access to confidential health care information through a cyberattack. Noneth
Driver / motor-vehicle records = Texas parallels federal
The federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act restricts disclosure of motor-vehicle records. Texas mirrors it at the state level with its Motor Vehicle Records Disclosure Act — a parallel scheme rather than an expansion.
Credit reporting ⊘ Federal preempts (state role limited)
The Fair Credit Reporting Act governs consumer credit reporting — and it expressly PREEMPTS much state credit-reporting law, so Texas’s role here is limited (mainly security-freeze mechanics under Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 20). This is the teaching contrast to the topics above: sometimes federal law leaves room for the state, and sometimes it takes it away. To dispute a credit error, the FCRA path (and the CFPB) is usually the operative one.
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ch. 20