The scenario arrives the same way each time. An app is passed around a group chat. Somebody feeds in a photograph taken from a public account or a yearbook. The output circulates for a day, and then a parent finds out.
Everyone involved assumes the same thing, that because the image is not real, this is at worst a school problem. Texas law as of September 2025 says otherwise, and it says so through two separate statutes that operate on different theories. One turns on a real child's likeness. The other does not require a real child to exist.
The Statute That Does Not Need a Real Child
Senate Bill 20, signed on 20 June 2025 and effective 1 September 2025, added Section 43.235 to the Texas Penal Code. It makes it an offense to possess or promote obscene visual material that appears to depict a child younger than 18, regardless of whether a real child was involved.
Two features distinguish it from the existing child pornography statute:
- The material must be obscene. That is a legal standard with its own body of law, and it is the constitutional hinge the statute turns on. It is not a synonym for offensive.
- The source does not matter. Fully synthetic output, deepfakes, cartoons, animation, and other stylised depictions are all within reach, provided the obscenity threshold is met.
Penalties escalate on repetition: a state jail felony as a base offense, a third-degree felony where the person has a previous conviction, and a second-degree felony where there are two or more.
The legislation also addressed the training question, treating images of real children used to train a model to generate this category of material as within the scope of child pornography.
The Statute That Turns on a Real Person's Likeness
Where the source image is a real, identifiable minor, different provisions apply and the analysis is not about obscenity at all.
Section 43.261, the offense written for minors, reaches visual material where a real minor's image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the depiction, expressly including material created using an artificial intelligence application or other computer software. So a face-swapped image built from a classmate's photograph is inside the minor sexting statute even though the body in the image was never that classmate's. We cover the grades and the two affirmative defenses in our article on Texas sexting law for minors.
Section 43.26, possession or promotion of child pornography, remains the felony statute where material depicts a real child, and it is not limited to minors as defendants.
Federal Law Moved in the Same Year
The TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed on 19 May 2025 after passing the Senate unanimously and the House by 409 to 2. It federally criminalises the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated depictions, and requires covered online platforms to remove reported content promptly.
It also reaches threats. Intentionally threatening to publish such imagery in order to intimidate, coerce, extort, or cause mental distress is within its scope, which is the conduct pattern described in our article on sextortion.
For families, the practical significance of the removal obligation is that there is now a defined route to getting material taken down, rather than pleading with a platform's support queue.
What This Looks Like in an Actual Case
The pattern we see is not a sophisticated actor. It is a fifteen-year-old with a free app, a grudge or a joke, and no notion that a felony statute is in the vicinity. Several features of these cases matter:
- Distribution is what surfaces it. Almost none of these come to light through the creation. They come to light when the image is sent, and every forward adds a participant.
- Recipients are exposed too. Possession is an element. A student who received the image and did nothing is inside the text of more than one statute.
- The device tells the story. App installation, generation timestamps, and the source photograph typically all sit on the same phone.
- Schools refer. Under HB 6 the discipline track moves quickly and in parallel, as we explain in our article on school device policies and searches.
Where the Defenses Actually Are
These cases are defensible, but the arguments are technical rather than sympathetic.
Under Section 43.235 the obscenity element has to be proved, and that is a genuine threshold rather than a formality. Under Section 43.261 the statutory affirmative defenses may apply, including the defense for someone who did not produce or solicit the material, received it from another minor, and destroyed it within a reasonable time. Across all of them, knowing possession has to be established, which is not the same as an image existing in a cache or an auto-downloaded thread.
And in most of these cases the evidence came from a phone. How that phone was obtained, and whether anybody consented to it being searched, frequently matters more than the content itself.
What Parents Should Do
- Do not tell your child to delete the app and the images once an inquiry has started. That advice is sound the moment unsolicited material arrives and actively harmful afterwards.
- Do not let anyone examine the phone without a warrant. Consent is the most common way these cases get made.
- Say nothing to the depicted student's family. An apology is an admission.
- If your child is the one depicted, report and preserve. The TAKE IT DOWN Act removal route and a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children both help, and screenshots with timestamps support any later action.
- Treat it as a felony matter from day one, because the statutes involved are felony statutes even where the conduct looks juvenile.
What This Means for Your Family
The gap between how serious this feels to a teenager and how it is graded in the Penal Code is wider here than in almost any other offense a high school student can stumble into. That gap is the danger. A prank with an app now touches statutes that carry felony ranges and, in adult court, registration consequences.
For the wider category, see our guide to crimes against children charges in Texas. For how Texas has handled synthetic imagery more broadly, read our article on deepfakes and your legal tools under Texas law. If your child is being investigated in Collin or Denton County, our juvenile sex crimes defense lawyers can act before a device is handed over. Contact us for a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make AI-generated sexual images of a minor in Texas?
Yes. Senate Bill 20, effective 1 September 2025, added Penal Code Section 43.235, which makes it an offense to possess or promote obscene visual material that appears to depict a child younger than 18, whether or not a real child was involved. It is a state jail felony at base, rising to a third-degree felony with one prior conviction and a second-degree felony with two or more.
Does Texas law apply if the AI image is not of a real child?
Section 43.235 applies regardless of whether a real child exists, provided the material is obscene and appears to depict a child. Where a real, identifiable minor's image was used to create or modify the depiction, Section 43.261 also applies, since it expressly covers material adapted using an artificial intelligence application or other computer software.
Can a teenager be charged for AI-generated images of a classmate in Texas?
Yes. Section 43.261 covers a minor who promotes or possesses visual material depicting a minor in sexual conduct, and it reaches depictions created or modified using AI from a real minor's image. Depending on the facts, Section 43.235 or Section 43.26 may also be in play, and those carry felony grades.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act?
A federal law signed on 19 May 2025 that criminalises distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated depictions, and requires covered online platforms to remove reported content promptly. It also reaches intentional threats to publish such imagery in order to intimidate, coerce, extort, or cause mental distress.
What should I do if someone made an AI image of my child?
Preserve evidence with dated screenshots rather than deleting, use the platform removal route created by the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Avoid contacting the other family directly. If your child is being questioned about their own involvement, speak to a lawyer before any device is handed over or any statement is given.