Committee narrows data‑broker privacy bill, orders substitute amendment and study

The Memorial Committee on Commerce and Economic Development met on Friday to review competing versions of a draft privacy bill that would let designated public servants request that companies stop disclosing their home addresses and other protected personal information. Committee members debated whether the measure should target registered data brokers, broader “commercial entities,” or include public agencies, and agreed to have staff draft a substitute amendment and to commission a study of the burden on government systems.

The dispute centered on scope and remedies. Legal counsel Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Council walked members through a side‑by‑side comparison of the committee’s commerce version and Representative Harvey’s amendment, noting several substantive changes in definitions and enforcement. “I have a side by side so that we can take a look at the difference,” Segal said as he described differences in how the bills define who is covered, what counts as a disclosure, and what remedies are available.

Why it matters: The bill targets people the transcript labels “covered persons” (judges, jurors, government lawyers, prosecutors, law‑enforcement officers and some other public servants). If enacted, it could require companies that maintain or sell personal‑data lists to stop publicly disclosing certain contact information on notice — and it could force towns and state agencies to change how some records are published online. Committee members repeatedly warned the combination of a broad definition of disclosure, inclusion of public agencies, and civil remedies could trigger constitutional or public‑records conflicts and expose municipalities to legal liability.

Key…