Senate Judiciary hears sharp divisions over HB195, an opt‑in disclosure bill for third‑party data holders

The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on HB195, a bill that would require certain third‑party providers to obtain specific opt‑in consent before disclosing personal information. Sponsors Representative Bob Lynn and Representative Marjorie Smith told the committee the measure is intended to supplement the state's comprehensive privacy law and to give residents clearer control over data held by entities such as credit card companies, insurers and utilities.

"This bill is limited completely to disclosure," Representative Bob Lynn said. "The main difference ... is it requires an opt in, a specific opt in procedure, to gain consent from someone if you want to be able to disclose their information." Representative Marjorie Smith emphasized the public demand for stronger protections following the recent constitutional privacy amendment and framed HB195 as a necessary legislative follow‑up.

The bill drew sustained opposition from business and industry groups, privacy advocates and several state officials, who warned HB195 could conflict with the recently enacted RSA 507‑H (the comprehensive privacy statute enacted as part of SB255) and create legal and operational confusion. Andrew Kingman of the State Privacy & Security Coalition testified in respectful opposition, saying the comprehensive law already regulates disclosures, defines key terms and establishes compliance mechanisms; he warned HB195 uses different terminology and would be difficult to reconcile with RSA 507‑H.

"If we're going to talk about modifying that bill, we should do it within the context of that bill using the same terms," Kingman said, adding that HB195's undefined use of "disclosure" and differently framed "third party" concept could create uncertainty for businesses and consumers.

Representatives of cable and telecommunications companies also opposed the bill. Maura Weston of the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association said HB195's definitions are imprecise and that treating "individuals" rather than "consumers" and subjecting routine operational exchanges to opt‑in rules could disrupt authentication, billing and other day‑to‑day functions.

Law enforcement and the Attorney General's Office raised separate concerns. Lieutenant Steven McCauley of the New Hampshire State Police testified the bill's "good cause" standard for nondisclosure is not clearly defined and could vary by provider, creating delays in urgent investigations. "These circumstances are extremely fluid and oftentimes are extremely high risk situations," McCauley said, asking how an exigent law‑enforcement request should be handled if a provider declines to waive notice.

Warren Cormack, who leads the Department of Justice data privacy unit, testified the bill's penalty structure is too weak to deter violations. He asked the committee to align enforcement penalties with RSA 507‑H, noting that current law allows penalties up to $10,000 per violation while HB195 as drafted would authorize $1,000 per violation.

Financial and insurance sector witnesses cautioned that federal regimes such as the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act and HIPAA already govern many records and that HB195 offers no clear entity‑level exemptions comparable to SB255. Robert Dietl, counsel for the New Hampshire Bankers Association, said the bill's interaction with existing federal and state regulation could produce uncertainty for banks handling urgent fraud investigations. Michelle Heaton of the Insurance Department said the bill could create administrative burdens for insurers and third‑party administrators who routinely exchange data to process claims.

Supporters included citizens and some privacy advocates who framed the measure as strengthening the consent standard established under SB255 by moving from a largely opt‑out approach to an affirmative opt‑in for certain disclosures. Representative Lynn proposed an amendment during testimony to clarify language; he and Representative Smith expressed willingness to work with stakeholders on drafting tweaks.

The committee concluded the hearing with no formal vote recorded on HB195. The bill will remain under the Judiciary Committee's consideration; sponsors and witnesses signaled interest in further drafting and technical changes in response to the concerns raised.

Ending: The hearing closed after lengthy testimony from private‑sector representatives, agency officials and citizen proponents. No final action on HB195 was taken at the session.