Alan Stacora, chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the National Public Records Research Association, told a legislative committee that House Bill 501 would create “significant privacy data security risks” by making the personally identifiable information of beneficial owners part of the public record.

The testimony Wednesday before a Legislature MA committee urged lawmakers to amend HB 501 to remove the public‑record requirement and instead require beneficial ownership information to be held in a secure database accessible only to government and law‑enforcement authorities.

Why it matters: Stacora said HB 501 would require disclosures of each beneficial owner’s name, date of birth, residential or business address, passport or driver’s license number and tax identification number. He warned that publishing that personally identifiable information would expose thousands of individuals to “identity theft, targeted harassment, or cybersecurity breaches.” He contrasted HB 501 with federal and other state approaches and recommended clarifying ambiguous definitions and reporting requirements in the bill.

Stacora testified that the Federal Corporate Transparency Act and the New York LLC Transparency Act require reporting of beneficial ownership but protect that data by housing it in secure, nonpublic systems. “Under both of those acts, only governmental authorities and law enforcement have access to the DOI information for legitimate investigative purposes,” he said. He noted that the District of Columbia’s public records include only beneficial owner names and business addresses and do not publish residential addresses, dates of birth or unique identifying numbers.

Stacora, who identified himself as representing the National Public Records Research Association, said the association opposes the public‑record aspect of HB 501 and recommended three changes: strike the public‑record language; require DOI reports to be housed in a secure database accessible only to government and law enforcement; and add clarifying definitions for terms such as “holds membership interest” and “exercises substantial and ultimate beneficial ownership.”

He also highlighted areas the bill left unclear: whether a filing must include copies of passports, driver’s licenses or state IDs or merely the document numbers; and whether the reporting requirement would apply retroactively to existing limited liability companies.

Committee members encountered technical difficulties with at least one remote witness and asked written testimony be submitted; the panel did not take any votes or make decisions on HB 501 during the session. The committee moved to adjourn after the testimony.

The testimony was the primary substantive item on an otherwise light agenda; committee members present included Chairwoman Viola and several state legislators who identified themselves as representatives and a senator. The committee did not announce a schedule for further consideration of HB 501 during the hearing.