the difference is that we're talking about two entirely different concepts.

the TX law creates standing under what's called a qui tam action. a legal injury has certainly occurred, but the baby who is now murdered is the only one who normally has standing. the mom isn't going to sue or press charges on the baby's behalf because she was in on it. qui tam expands standing to allow individuals to shut down offenders who are frequently able to evade actually being held responsible through the practicals of the situation.

the CA law is trying to create liability where no legal injury occurred at all. products manufacturers are categorically not liable under products liability for the illegal misuse of their products... only if the safety features actually malfunctioned. when they try and create liability for gun owners or gun manufacturers, it's like if a thug stole a porsche and hits people with it, porsche is generally not liable, the owner is not liable. the CA law effectively seeks to abolish this doctrine, and hold everyone else strictly liable for the actions of literal criminals. the only people who win are the personal injury lawyers. this is not at all what qui tam is for, and in all likelihood will not survive on appeal.