Skip to content
AnglinAI Docs

Appendix — State-Law Layer (`PRINT-LEGAL-011` … `013`)

Preamble: US state layer, jurisdiction-scoped, non-exhaustive

The core section (00-legal-basis.md) is US-federal. On top of it sits a state layer of type-size, readability, and conspicuousness mandates that attach to specific document classes — insurance policies, consumer contracts, and certain consent forms. These are:

  • Jurisdiction-scoped. A requirement below is law only in states that enacted it (often via an NAIC model law adopted with local variation) — the specific point size, exemptions, and triggers differ by state.
  • Non-exhaustive. This is a representative sample to show the shape of the state layer, not a fifty-state survey. Absence of a state here is not evidence that state imposes nothing.
  • Not a substitute for counsel. Applicability and the exact operative number for a given document in a given state are legal determinations. See PRINT-LEGAL-018.

These entries are kept out of the core file deliberately: the core must stay defensible and lean, and a partial state survey should never read as if it were the controlling federal floor.

PRINT-LEGAL-011 — NAIC-model insurance policy readability / minimum-type statutes (state layer)

Level: MAY (context — binding only in adopting states, for the covered policy class) Applies to: all documents (insurance policy forms subject to the state’s readability statute) Source: NAIC Life and Health Insurance Policy Language Simplification Model Act (Model #575): minimum Flesch Reading Ease score of 40 and body text in not less than 10-point type (with a 1-point leading provision), exempting specification pages, schedules, and tables — as adopted with variation into state insurance codes Source strength: statute (NAIC model law adopted into state law; jurisdiction-scoped) Machine-checkable: partial Validation: Type size is directly measurable (≥10-point body). Flesch Reading Ease ≥40 is computable from extracted text (with the usual caveats about extraction accuracy). The schedule/table exemption requires document-region awareness.

Where a state has adopted the NAIC policy-simplification model, covered insurance policy forms MUST meet a minimum Flesch Reading Ease score (40 under Model #575) and MUST use body type of at least 10-point (exempting specification pages, schedules, and tables) — but only to the extent, and with the numeric thresholds, that the specific state enacted.

Rationale: Dense, small, jargon-heavy policy language hides material terms from all consumers and defeats low-vision readers outright; the model law was written precisely to force legible, plainer policy text. Implementation notes: For insurance-carrier customers, our PDF/forms pipelines can enforce a 10-point body floor and compute a Flesch score as an assistive check, flagging policies that fall short — but the tool must not assert conformance to a specific state’s statute, because the enacted number and exemptions vary. Treat the 10-point / Flesch-40 pair as the NAIC-model default and label it as such.

PRINT-LEGAL-012 — Consumer-contract conspicuousness doctrine (UCC / state)

Level: MAY (context — common-law/statutory standard, functional not numeric) Applies to: all documents (consumer and commercial contract terms that the law requires to be “conspicuous”) Source: UCC § 1-201(b)(10) definition of “conspicuous” (as enacted by states; e.g., Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 1.201(b)(10)); disclaimers/limitations under UCC §§ 2-316, 2-719 must be conspicuous Source strength: statute / common law (jurisdiction-scoped) Machine-checkable: partial Validation: The doctrine is functional (“a reasonable person ought to have noticed it”), not a fixed point size — but the enumerated safe-harbor techniques (larger type than surrounding text; ALL CAPS; bold or contrasting type/font/color; set off by symbols) are individually detectable. A tool can flag a required term that is not visually differentiated; it cannot certify that any given treatment is legally “conspicuous.”

Terms the law requires to be conspicuous (notably warranty disclaimers and remedy limitations) MUST be written, displayed, or presented so that a reasonable person against whom they operate ought to have noticed them — achieved by larger type, capitals, bold/contrasting type or color, or set-off symbols. Whether a term is conspicuous is a question for the court.

Rationale: A limitation buried in uniform fine print may be unenforceable — and is simultaneously a legibility failure for low-vision readers. Conspicuousness and accessibility pull in the same direction here. Implementation notes: Our tooling can flag required-disclosure regions that share the surrounding body’s type size/weight/color (i.e., visually undifferentiated) as a candidate conspicuousness/legibility problem, but must present it as “review,” not a legal verdict. Note the tension with our own typography rules: ALL-CAPS is a UCC safe harbor but harms readability (see PRINT-TYPO-012) — prefer bold/contrasting/larger type over all-caps to satisfy both.

PRINT-LEGAL-013 — State consent-form formatting mandates, Texas specifically

Level: MAY (context — binding in Texas for the covered document classes) Applies to: forms only (Texas consumer-cancellation notices; Texas informed-consent disclosure forms) Source (verified): Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 601.053 — buyer’s three-day right-to-cancel notice for door-to-door / certain consumer transactions must appear in 10-point boldfaced type; related holder-notice and consumer-credit disclosures likewise require ≥10-point boldfaced type. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 74.102–74.105 — Texas Medical Disclosure Panel prescribes the form and substance of informed-consent disclosure forms (mandatory panel forms; List A/B risk disclosure) Source strength: statute (Texas; jurisdiction-scoped) Machine-checkable: partial Validation: The 10-point boldface figure in the § 601.x consumer-cancellation/holder notices is directly measurable (type size + weight + placement near signature). The § 74.10x consent-form mandate is a content/format-of-record requirement (use the panel’s prescribed form) — presence/structure can be assisted, legal adequacy cannot.

Texas MUST-level, document-class-specific formatting: the consumer three-day cancellation notice under § 601.053 MUST be in 10-point boldfaced type placed near the signature; consumer-credit “holder” notices MUST be in ≥10-point boldfaced type; and informed-consent disclosures on the Texas Medical Disclosure Panel’s list MUST follow the panel-prescribed form and substance under §§ 74.102–74.105.

Rationale: These are consumer- and patient-protection formatting rules whose whole purpose is to make a critical term impossible to miss — the accessibility and legal-validity goals coincide. Sub-spec type can invalidate the notice and exclude low-vision signers. Implementation notes: For Texas consumer-contract and healthcare-consent customers, enforce a 10-point boldface floor on the § 601.x notice blocks in the docx→AcroForm and PDF paths, and place the block near the signature. Verification status: the 10-point-boldface figures were confirmed against the Texas Business & Commerce Code as published on FindLaw/Justia statutory mirrors; I could not render the raw text off the JS-driven statutes.capitol.texas.gov page, so treat the exact subsection wording as confirmed-via-mirror rather than fetched-from-the-Legislature’s-own-server. The Texas Medical Disclosure Panel form list and its exact current type specifications were not independently rendered from a primary source in this pass — treat the “use the prescribed panel form” duty as verified (statutory) but any specific point size for panel consent forms as unverified pending a look at the panel’s current rules (25 TAC Chapter 601 / current TMDP forms).

Disclaimer: This appendix is engineering guidance, not legal advice. State adoption, thresholds, and exemptions vary and change. Jurisdiction- and entity-specific questions go to counsel (PRINT-LEGAL-018).