Delegates hear sweeping proposal for data‑broker registry and tax to fund privacy enforcement

Delegate Jared Solomon described House Bill 10‑89 to the Economic Matters Committee as a follow‑up to Maryland’s recent privacy reforms: create a registry of data brokers and a tax on data sales to fund enforcement of the state’s online privacy laws.

"The first piece of this is the creation of a data broker registry," Solomon said. "The second piece is we create a tax on essentially the sale of that data." He told the committee the registry would identify who is holding Marylanders’ data and provide a route to opt out or correct errors; the revenue, Solomon said, would support an enforcement unit in the Office of the Attorney General to investigate privacy violations and related high‑tech matters.

Attorney General (office representative) testified in support, saying unregulated data sharing can harm consumers and that enforcement resources are thin: "Without dedicated professionals, attorneys, investigators, and technologists ... my office simply cannot effectively regulate this evolving industry," the AG told the committee. He noted other states have dedicated privacy enforcement teams and that the state’s existing privacy laws require enforcement capacity to be effective.

Privacy and consumer groups also urged a favorable report. Marissa Shea, a tech policy expert, said that a registry would increase transparency and that taxing brokers—an industry that earned hundreds of billions nationally—could fund enforcement. Caitriona Fitzgerald of the Electronic Privacy Information Center urged adding penalties for failure to register and a central deletion mechanism like California’s Delete Act.

Industry witnesses opposed or cautioned against the bill as drafted. Maryland business groups, TechNet and trade associations argued the definition of "data broker" was too broad and might capture ordinary businesses; they urged narrowing the scope to entities that sell data to third parties with whom they have no direct consumer relationship. Testimony from the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and TechNet warned of duplicate taxes, conflicts with federal commerce principles and potential litigation if the measure applied to out‑of‑state sellers.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on definitions, the tax design, and whether the revenue would be used primarily for enforcement. Solomon said he and his cross‑file sponsor in the Senate had discussed narrowing the definitions and that the bill includes an implementation on‑ramp tied to creation of the registry. He and the Attorney General acknowledged the fiscal note was preliminary and that some revenue estimates were optimistic.

What’s next: The sponsor said he would accept technical and definitional amendments to narrow the scope, and the Office of the Attorney General indicated it would work with the committee on implementation language. The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing.