Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 98C.001, 98C.003, 98C.004, 98C.005, 98C.006
Online impersonation in Texas — chapter 98C, effective September 1, 2025
A claim in Texas district and county courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Chapter 98C is the newest cause of action in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. It was added by H.B. 783 in the 89th Legislature and took effect September 1, 2025, and it has no appellate gloss at all — a page about it is a page about statutory text.
Two features stand out. The claim is confined to social media platforms, which is narrower than its name suggests. And the fee provision is mandatory and two-way, which is rare in Texas and changes the risk of bringing it.
What the claim is
Someone set up an account using your name, voice, signature or likeness on a social media platform, without your consent, to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten you.
Where the right comes from
CPRC chapter 98C, added by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 927 (H.B. 783), effective September 1, 2025.
What "online impersonation" means
Section 98C.001(1) defines it as "a person's use of an individual's name, voice, signature, or likeness in visual material on a social media platform without that individual's consent or, if the individual is a minor, the consent of that individual's parent, legal guardian, or managing conservator."
Four limits are packed into that sentence.
Name, voice, signature or likeness — the same four attributes the common-law misappropriation branch protects.
In visual material, which takes its meaning from Penal Code § 43.26.
On a social media platform, as defined by Business & Commerce Code § 120.001. An impersonating email account, a fake text message, a spoofed website or a dating profile outside that definition is not within the chapter, however harmful.
Without consent — and for a minor, without a parent's, guardian's or managing conservator's consent.
What a plaintiff has to prove
Section 98C.004(a): a person is liable to another person injured by the person's online impersonation if:
- The person knowingly and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten the injured person used the online impersonation to create a false identity; and
- The online impersonation is, to a reasonable person, “virtually indistinguishable from an actual person.”
Element two is the interesting one. The account has to be convincing. A parody profile marked as a parody, or one no reasonable person would take for the real thing, fails it before the satire exception is reached.
The satire and parody exception
Section 98C.004(b): "A person is not liable for an online impersonation of which a purpose is satire or parody."
Read the article — a purpose, not the purpose. A defendant does not have to show that satire was the only or even the main object. That drafting choice gives the exception a wide reach, and it is the first thing a defendant will raise.
What the chapter does not reach
Interactive computer services. Section 98C.003: the chapter "may not be construed to impose liability on an interactive computer service as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 230(f) for content provided by another person." Chapter 98C imposes no takedown duty and no platform liability — which distinguishes it from chapter 98B, where the 2025 amendments did reach the platforms.
Law enforcement. Section 98C.002: the chapter does not apply to a law enforcement agency or its employee acting within the scope of employment in investigating internet crimes.
How long you have to file
Two years, most likely. Chapter 98C sets no period of its own, so the general personal injury period in CPRC § 16.003(a) governs — and no court has yet said so.
That is a difference worth noting against its neighbour: chapter 98B was given a ten-year period in the same 2025 session, and chapter 98C was not.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing.
What the claim pays
Section 98C.005(a): a prevailing claimant shall be awarded actual damages, including expenditures made by the claimant related to counseling, identity theft, or libel. The subsection adds that the defendant's profits attributable to the impersonation may be considered in computing actual damages.
Section 98C.005(b): exemplary damages of not less than $500 — a floor rather than a cap, and available in addition to actual damages.
Section 98C.005(c): "The court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any action under this chapter."
Section 98C.006: a court may issue a temporary restraining order or a temporary or permanent injunction to restrain and prevent the impersonation.
The fee provision cuts both ways
Section 98C.005(c) is mandatory and it is not limited to the claimant. A defendant who prevails recovers costs and reasonable attorney's fees from the plaintiff.
Few Texas causes of action work this way. Most fee statutes run one way to a prevailing claimant, and the ones that run both ways usually make the award discretionary. Here it is neither.
The consequence is that a chapter 98C suit is a genuine two-sided risk. A plaintiff whose case fails on the satire exception, on the resemblance element, or on intent pays the defendant's lawyer. That is worth weighing before filing, and it weighs heaviest where the account reads as a joke.
Who can be sued
The impersonator. The chapter reaches the person who created and used the false identity.
Not the platform, under § 98C.003.
How it fits beside the other claims
The same fake account often supports several theories, and they differ in what they require.
Defamation — for false statements the account published. One-year deadline under § 16.002(a); no fees.
Misappropriation of name or likeness — the common-law privacy branch. Two years, no fees, and no requirement that the use be on a social media platform.
Harmful access by computer — where the defendant got into your real account rather than creating a fake one. Actual damages plus mandatory fees, one way.
Chapter 98B — where the impersonation involved intimate images, real or generated. Ten years, mandatory fees, platform duties.
Chapter 98C adds the mandatory fee award and the $500 exemplary floor, and takes on the two-way fee risk in exchange.
Common defenses
- Satire or parody was a purpose of the impersonation.
- The impersonation was not “virtually indistinguishable” from an actual person.
- No intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten.
- Not a social media platform, within Business & Commerce Code § 120.001.
- Consent.
- Section 98C.003, for an interactive computer service.
- The TCPA, where the account is a vehicle for protected speech — which brings a second mandatory fee provision into a case that already has one.
- Limitations.
What people get wrong
This is a 2025 statute, not a 2023 one. It took effect September 1, 2025 and has produced no case law.
It only covers social media platforms. A fake email account, a spoofed website or a fake dating profile outside that definition is not within chapter 98C.
The fee award runs against a losing plaintiff. Section 98C.005(c) awards fees to the prevailing party, and the court shall make the award.
The parody exception is broad. Satire needs to be a purpose, not the only one.
The platform is not liable under this chapter. Section 98C.003 says so, and there is no takedown duty here of the kind chapter 98B created.
Where it came from
Texas criminalised online impersonation in 2009, in Penal Code § 33.07, and left the civil side alone for sixteen years. Victims of fake accounts had defamation for the false statements, the misappropriation branch of invasion of privacy for the use of their identity, and little else — and neither claim paid for a lawyer.
The 2025 chapter fills that gap and reflects two judgments about what changed in the meantime. Generative tools made a convincing impersonation cheap, which is why the statute asks whether the account is “virtually indistinguishable” from a real person instead of whether it fooled anyone. And the harm from an impersonation is often reputational and diffuse, which is why the statute names the recoverable expenditures — counselling, identity theft, libel — and sets an exemplary floor instead of requiring proof of a quantifiable loss.
The two-way fee provision is the balancing weight. A claim that turns on whether an account was meant as a joke could chill a great deal of ordinary internet speech, and the legislature answered that by making the plaintiff pay if the joke defence wins.
Common questions
When did the online impersonation claim take effect in Texas?
September 1, 2025. There is no appellate case law interpreting it yet.
Does it cover a fake email or a spoofed website?
No. Chapter 98C is limited to impersonation on a social media platform as defined in Business & Commerce Code § 120.001.
What can I recover?
Actual damages including counselling, identity theft and libel expenditures, exemplary damages of at least $500, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. The defendant's profits may be considered in computing actual damages.
Is a parody account actionable?
No, if satire or parody was a purpose of it.
Can the defendant recover fees from me if I lose?
Yes. The court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party, whichever side that is.
How long do I have to sue?
Two years, under the general personal injury period. Chapter 98C sets no deadline of its own.