Departing Employees, New Hires, and AI

Short Answer

Departures can move information through chat histories, saved prompts, custom assistants and connected accounts as well as familiar downloads and cloud copies. New hires can carry the same records from a former employer. The June 15, 2026 xAI v. OpenAI dismissal illustrates the need to plead the hiring company’s own alleged misconduct; it is not a rule that coordinated recruiting or acquisition of secrets is always lawful. Texas trade secret, contract and noncompete rules remain separate. An exit and onboarding process should address the account, data, access and preservation question for each tool.

Which Laws Apply

Texas AI-specific: none.

Generally applicable Texas law: TUTSA, Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 134A; Business and Commerce Code § 15.50 to 15.52 (noncompetes); SB 1318 (2025) on health care noncompetes; contract law.

Federal: DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836; federal criminal trade secret law, 18 U.S.C. § 1832.

Outgoing Employees

Add AI accounts and workspaces to exit procedures. Identify the tools used, preserve company records and relevant evidence, revoke access, and arrange authorized return or deletion of company information subject to legal holds. Personal accounts require a lawful access and collection process rather than an assumed right to inspect everything. Remind the employee of confidentiality duties and document the completed steps. Where theft is suspected, preserve relevant chat histories before routine deletion.

Incoming Employees

The June 15, 2026 order in X.AI Corp. v. OpenAI, ECF 110, dismissed the amended complaint without further leave to amend because the pleaded connection to OpenAI’s own inducement, acquisition or disclosure was insufficient. The court did not treat an interview question about prior experience alone as encouragement to reveal secrets. The order applies the claims before a California federal court. For Texas employers, the useful practice is to prohibit bringing former-employer information and document the hiring company’s instructions and actual conduct.

Criminal Exposure

Sections 1831 and 1832 of Title 18 criminalize specified economic espionage and trade-secret theft. Their intent, benefit and conduct elements differ from a civil TUTSA or DTSA claim. A civil exit investigation should preserve evidence and consider those elements where the facts warrant it, without describing an allegation or an initial verdict as a final criminal outcome.

Noncompetes in Texas

Business and Commerce Code § 15.50 governs enforceability of Texas noncompetes, including ancillary-agreement and reasonable-limit requirements. SB 1318 added separate limits for physicians and specified health care practitioners for covered agreements entered or renewed on or after September 1, 2025. The covered profession, buyout, duration and geographic conditions must be read in the applicable subsection. An injunction cannot simply bar using general knowledge, skill and experience under TUTSA Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 134A.003(a). This Guide does not treat an inevitable-disclosure theory as a settled Texas AI rule.

Illustrative Example (Hypothetical)

An engineer leaves a Houston energy software company for a competitor and keeps a personal AI workspace containing summaries of the former employer’s pricing models. The former employer’s exit checklist did not mention AI accounts. Its claim will depend on proving what the workspace held and that it took reasonable measures, which is harder without a policy that covered AI tools.

What Is Unsettled

How courts will treat AI chat histories as evidence of misappropriation; whether Texas will adopt inevitable disclosure.