Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy Disclosures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Banks, insurers and broadband providers urge committee to rely on new statewide privacy law; lawmakers hear House Bill 195
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 195, which would require affirmative customer consent before certain third-party providers disclose personal information about New Hampshire residents, with limited exceptions for emergencies and law-enforcement requests.
The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 195, which would bar certain third-party providers (for example, telephone carriers, internet service providers, cable/streaming providers, banks, insurers and credit-card companies) from disclosing personal information about New Hampshire residents unless the resident gave affirmative, opt-in consent, with enumerated exceptions for law enforcement requests and emergencies.
Representative Lynn, sponsor of the bill, described H.B. 195 as narrower than the comprehensive consumer privacy law the Legislature enacted earlier (Senate Bill 255, now RSA 507-H). He said H.B. 195 focuses on disclosure by a specific set of covered entities and requires affirmative consent before disclosing personal information for purposes other than providing the requested service.
Business groups and regulated industries strongly urged caution. Neil Kirk (representing himself) and witnesses from State Farm (attorney Kirsten Schultz), the New Hampshire Bankers Association (Ryan Hale), TechNet (Chris Gilrein) and the Business & Industry Association (Rick Fabrizio) said the state law passed last year already creates a framework that industry is implementing; they warned H.B. 195 would create conflicting rules and compliance burdens. State Farm and several insurers said the bill lacks exemptions in RSA 507-H that insurers rely on, and that the bills opt-in requirement for disclosure would be operationally costly.
TechNet and other technology-sector witnesses warned that an opt-in consent requirement for routine disclosures would produce "consent fatigue" and disrupt ordinary commerce; they urged the committee to allow the newer, comprehensive law to mature. Financial-sector witnesses said the bill could hamper fraud prevention and identity verification and noted banks already comply with multiple federal privacy and reporting laws.
Law enforcement raised narrower, practical concerns: Lieutenant Steve McCall of the New Hampshire State Police said the bills notification timing and a 10-day production schedule for some disclosures could delay active investigations (for example, pings or location data in exigent circumstances). He asked the committee to make sure exemptions for exigent public-safety requests are explicit and workable for 9-1-1 operators and investigators.
The Department of Justices data-privacy unit suggested the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism comparable to existing consumer-protection enforcement (RSA 358-A); the attorney representing the unit recommended either tying enforcement to the Consumer Protection Act or adding comparable injunctive and subpoena authority and increased civil penalties.
Supporters of the bill argued it would restore a privacy floor for categories of personal data and for the kinds of third-party providers they consider most sensitive. Neil Kirk and others emphasized the limited scope of H.B. 195 (disclosure only; not acquisition) and proposed narrow exceptions for law enforcement and emergency circumstances.
No final action was taken. Committee members heard substantial cross-testimony that H.B. 195 could unintentionally conflict with the comprehensive statutory regime adopted in 507-H and could create operational challenges for banks, insurers, and broadband and cable providers. Sponsors and opponents said they would pursue technical drafting changes if the bill advanced.
