[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6081748,"mediaKeyId","2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f","parentId",2941481,"title","Mass. hearing spotlights push to ban sale of precise location data to protect patients, protesters and vulnerable groups","audioSeconds",3597,"startMs",115000,"endMs",3712000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f&start=115&end=3712","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f/thumbnail_115000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6081748/Massachusetts/Mass-hearing-spotlights-push-to-ban-sale-of-precise-location-data-to-protect-patients-protesters-and-vulnerable-groups","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6081748-21f77809da8351c561cc0c7f83c9dcad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138796&Signature=k3UuliA0uslSWsy9-HabxwiSGWsBsr2GHb9usL5~L345TzX1euDWpoL3lcLz1x-opyR2yYUWOiQMeiTaktNXPMQppNLK-nB9KXlnmJZ9dnWpgDYTKwpM9Ige25otHsWzsHdR6rqVtCkHJxEhIo2Kz593yQja41~4gVJ4EhbfiNr~XsczREP3hlGXrCXFMS8IQ33CF609~5yhQbPTRoTCb6Cyy9cIkrQ3SJ81Bkb0lgRC8NCMQNAzhTVYg12ViVeKk2Ywd5ZPE8PPmYACHtnwrdTxbt8hEDiFpzeBIahiMOEw8qsz3rEygYRFm83Y~6pg1k9OJIziZFmLqKkRtIc3DA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity","date","2025-04-09T00:00:00Z","article","A joint legislative hearing in Boston on data privacy focused early and repeatedly on bills that would ban the sale of precise cell‑phone location data and strengthen consumer protections in Massachusetts.

Supporters told the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity that existing private data markets let brokers sell people’s movements to the highest bidder, a practice that can be used to identify visitors to reproductive‑health providers, faith centers, shelters and community events. Representative Farley Bouvier, the House chair presiding at the hearing, and Senator Michael Moore, the Senate chair, framed the panels and witnesses around the risks that location data poses to public safety and civil liberties.

Witnesses from medical, civil‑liberties and reproductive‑health organizations described specific cases and trends. Dr. Kendra Harris, an OB‑GYN who provides abortion and gender‑affirming care in Massachusetts, said patients sometimes arrive with minimal personal devices or rely on others for directions because they fear being tracked. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (represented by Megan Evans) and Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (represented by Carrie Riggles and Meghan Donnelly) urged the committee to pass the Location Shield Act to prevent third‑party brokers from monetizing location records that reveal clinic visits.

Advocates also said the market for location information creates risks for domestic‑violence survivors, journalists, judges, religious minorities and election workers. Representatives of the League of Women Voters and the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth described threats and harassment against community members that can be enabled or magnified by commercially available location feeds. Consumer advocates and privacy groups pressed for legislation that pairs a ban on sales of location data with broader data‑minimization requirements and enforceable rights for residents.

Industry and trade witnesses warned about complexity and urged the committee to consider interoperability with other states. Tech industry representatives argued for models adopted in other states that they said create clearer compliance paths for businesses; privacy advocates countered that many of those models lack robust data‑minimization rules and private enforcement that make laws effective in practice.

The committee heard dozens of in‑person and virtual witnesses and encouraged written input; no final votes were recorded at the hearing. Proponents said a focused Location Shield Act, combined with a broader consumer privacy law that establishes limits on sensitive data collection and transfers, would give Massachusetts residents practical and enforceable protections without stopping legitimate uses of location when consumers provide informed consent.

Looking ahead, committee members asked for additional technical briefings and legal drafting to square enforcement language, carve‑outs for legitimate service providers, and the interplay with federal privacy and health laws. Supporters pledged follow‑up materials and said they would work with the chairs to refine statutory language before any committee report or floor action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity - 4-9-2025","oneSentenceSummary","A joint legislative hearing in Boston on data privacy focused early and repeatedly on bills that would ban the sale of precise cell‑phone location data and strengthen consumer protections in Massachusetts.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6081733,"New bill would treat neural data as especially sensitive; researchers, clinicians press for protections",406,7983000,8389000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f&start=7983&end=8389","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f/thumbnail_7983000.jpg","/articles/6081733/Massachusetts/New-bill-would-treat-neural-data-as-especially-sensitive-researchers-clinicians-press-for-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6081733-651712835664167a85e144c9b4d7f3a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138796&Signature=jredfWERrBJ5EKWQ3L7Yd0J78S9W-lQ4zkj-6PimvvmIUkHMOqRuF11GkeYRkWJa2V9pmwppaCQ52nO5dfrvzoB4FPGrUGUZ-LAygWSTmy3S2lCGUvK6KT~Kg9B4CZIu6pZGIg2dArTVwfJTd-Z22zleiz7BjrPdPl1j3w8~g3~J3WqoO~Yx3kWhu3qeDqm7P9tAr~e6wxPrwoyWijxlfJbZ9lawE9xI3287w1hfrKKVGe9ss1PL8-ghs22cJ1PxqPweYI4HzAeG0b4dcfz2jZ8OfXkdc2YVIeotevZ32terA6ex45biuWwSqMVgajQNWkAuB8W7CQXIZ-BgKMnUgg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A separate group of witnesses pressed the committee to treat neural data as a distinct, highly sensitive category requiring explicit statutory protection.

Physicians and neurotechnology experts described a nascent but fast‑growing consumer market for non‑implantable brain‑computer interfaces — headbands and earbud sensors that measure electrical brain activity — and warned that those devices generate medical‑grade signals that fall outside HIPAA protections when sold as consumer wellness products. Dr. Sean Pazowski, a neurologist and clinical researcher, and representatives of the NeuroRights Foundation said the same sorts of neural features that clinicians use to diagnose epilepsy or other neurologic conditions can be collected by consumer devices and aggregated by private vendors.

Witnesses recommended a new statute (filed in the session as H103) that would prohibit sale of neural data, require affirmative consent for any transfer, and impose strong disclosure and deletion obligations on companies. Neurotech advocates said the measures would protect sensitive information (mental‑health signals, cognitive biomarkers and thought‑decoding risks) while allowing legitimate research and medical uses under proper regulatory and clinical safeguards.

Industry witnesses cautioned that definitions must be precise to avoid unduly constraining medically beneficial products, and committee staff asked for follow‑up materials explaining how neural signals are collected, which data elements are uniquely revealing, and how proposed prohibitions would interact with research and clinical uses.

Committee members requested written technical comments and examples of drafting approaches used by other states and jurisdictions; no committee vote was recorded.","Witnesses urged the Joint Committee to add specific protections for neural/brain data, citing consumer neurotechnology headbands and earbuds that already collect medical‑grade signals outside HIPAA or FDA oversight.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6081738,"Lawmakers consider ban on biometric and surveillance‑driven grocery pricing amid equity concerns",10570,2282000,12852000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f&start=2282&end=12852","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f/thumbnail_2282000.jpg","/articles/6081738/Massachusetts/Lawmakers-consider-ban-on-biometric-and-surveillancedriven-grocery-pricing-amid-equity-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6081738-918214f8e30cff3c10ba9c2ae0d71570/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138796&Signature=bgoUmt9De7GFWWBwWHOO4t4TwHAarIJZ7Lic4xQ~BFU-h2GjLmONpEs2bCeG9qSa-zT953pKgD3lHFbc6RtEDPeuqanqeC6Fq1Gmjv3jBa0qS980FxhGJU82U5-gAzLKIjLiI5hZG96vIVx4Ekce4B0WNqjFhJAJgvZcC5xoQnOJHXGYglvLTCXzteRz4gq3orc6ofDhe8URAQsCLXKM8-CMR9JTfEtRpjxDJRTYkePdWJxadIcCOUkUqhQTdw3oomhDOuWlRoEWoZPzcfqnInJn0u8bFSdunRuOBjdthNp7aXgwjlWEH5J7abXnQcXFR1n7yOi5wGpTPyjBJUh~Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a lengthy committee hearing, Representative Lindsey Sabadosa described H99 and S47 — bills designed to prohibit surveillance pricing and surveillance advertising in grocery stores — and urged lawmakers to act before biometric and camera‑driven price‑adjustment systems are rolled out nationwide.

Sabadosa told the committee that electronic shelf tags paired with facial recognition and real‑time customer profiling could let retailers offer different prices to individuals for essential goods based on inferred ability to pay or demographic indicators. She said food‑security and food‑justice groups support the bill because grocery stores remain the primary and often only source of affordable food for many households in rural and low‑income urban neighborhoods.

Consumer and civil‑society witnesses echoed the concern. Sarah Gagan of EPIC and Grace Geddy of Consumer Reports described recent pilots and public reporting showing trials of camera‑based advertising and price personalization; they asked the committee to prohibit use of biometric identifiers (face, iris, fingerprint) for individualized pricing and to regulate broader surveillance pricing practices.

Industry and retail witnesses asked for careful drafting that preserves legitimate retail uses such as promotions and loyalty discounts; they warned a narrow ban could produce unintended effects on loyalty programs and small retailers unless the bill differentiates between targeted discriminatory pricing and lawful loyalty‑based discounts.

Committee members signaled interest in narrowing the bill to a clear prohibition on biometric‑driven pricing while exploring further restrictions on broader surveillance pricing. No votes were taken; members requested follow‑up briefings on technical feasibility, enforcement, and carve‑outs for bona fide business programs.","Representative Lindsey Sabadosa and other advocates urged the committee to bar surveillance pricing and targeted in‑store advertising that uses facial recognition or electronic shelf tags, saying the practice would disproportionately harm low‑income shoppers and communities of color.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6081743,"Lawmakers weigh competing Massachusetts privacy bills; data‑minimization and enforcement emerge as fault lines",2365,2658000,5023000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f&start=2658&end=5023","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2941481-c8e65946070150192928fcad265ef43f/thumbnail_2658000.jpg","/articles/6081743/Massachusetts/Lawmakers-weigh-competing-Massachusetts-privacy-bills-dataminimization-and-enforcement-emerge-as-fault-lines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6081743-dd2b2e4303cc1a56f7ea918c7000ed8c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138796&Signature=RLgiF-OjiDmNOxs-hNkiFMmS0BrzxMQi7dD1ennpg19iivD~BeiC65g89FhdoKHEnR0LpRCOOLHHFExSfDQBlZ~yf2Gjgj8R43VQVIhJCpCow3EPpjFQi0NMgEYTpYyydDw01EYZGODv2pKtS2mtvdT2yG5zrR4NhxO9jQBRFpqRnshNrN9GFEJJlEqBKI31EKHJMHucxL5KMb2UA2yH0KbeDmN~bNmJDRwmgdZntysYCRI2TmegZB3SpbhbRwy31hr3nKD1UfiWWbmU7AHni208em9TayopsAmYLaFZHL5UlwNeoMi~QsddFyk6joJeGfYQHuN2GhOblELwfG8wXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers and witnesses used a full committee hearing to press competing visions for a statewide data‑privacy framework, spotlighting sharp differences on data‑minimization, enforcement and exemptions.

The hearing included testimony for H78 (Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act) and H80 (a competing model), Senate s33 and s45, and other bills that would set state rules on collection, profiling, targeted advertising and the sale of sensitive data. Industry witnesses including TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition urged an approach consistent with frameworks already adopted in other states to reduce compliance costs; consumer groups, civil‑liberties organizations and advocates pressed for stricter data‑minimization, a private right of action and an explicit ban on sale of sensitive categories such as precise location, reproductive‑health related data and biometric identifiers.

Experts debated the substance and consequences of data‑minimization language. Privacy advocates said a strong minimization rule — limiting collection to what is necessary to provide a requested product or service — prevents downstream harms by blocking unnecessary hoarding of profiles used for surveillance advertising or price discrimination. Industry witnesses warned that vague or untested minimization language can be hard for businesses to implement and could have unintended consequences for small operators and targeted services.

Enforcement also divided witnesses. Consumer groups, privacy researchers and many advocates argued that state attorneys general alone will lack bandwidth to police the market effectively and urged a private right of action so harmed individuals can seek relief and deter violations. Several industry and business groups opposed a private right of action, saying it can be abused by plaintiffs’ lawyers and that AG enforcement paired with rulemaking would be preferable.

A second recurring fault line concerned exemptions. Some business groups asked for entity‑level exemptions (for industries already regulated under federal law such as finance and health) while advocates urged limited, data‑level exemptions so that the protection follows the sensitive data rather than a particular corporate label.

Committee leaders asked advocates, trade groups and state agencies for technical drafting suggestions and said they would continue hearings to reconcile the competing elements. No formal votes were taken. The committee signaled it will try to balance consumer protections with predictable compliance paths for businesses — a practical test that will shape final language later this session.","A long hearing showcased competing state privacy proposals: comprehensive frameworks (H78/H80/S33/S45) and narrower bills; witnesses split over data‑minimization language, private rights of action and entity vs. data‑level exemptions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Mass. hearing spotlights push to ban sale of precise location data to protect patients, protesters and vulnerable groups

New bill would treat neural data as especially sensitive; researchers, clinicians press for protections

Lawmakers consider ban on biometric and surveillance‑driven grocery pricing amid equity concerns

Lawmakers weigh competing Massachusetts privacy bills; data‑minimization and enforcement emerge as fault lines