Attorney General says House File 20 transparency bill would undermine investigations and multistate litigation

Attorney General Keith Ellison told the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee that House File 20 would significantly alter how the attorney general’s office classifies and discloses data, undermining the office’s ability to protect Minnesotans and cooperate with other states in multistate litigation.

Ellison said HF 20’s proposed changes to public data classifications would require disclosure of information the office collects during investigations, including material the attorney general described as confidential trade secrets obtained from corporations, nonprofits and state agencies. “This data includes confidential trade secrets of major multinational corporations that would be required … to be disclosed under HF 20,” Ellison said, adding that such disclosure could threaten business operations and inhibit multistate cooperation.

Ellison cited the practical consequences: if Minnesota’s data practices diverge from other states, other state attorneys general might refuse to share information, reducing the resources available for large multistate cases such as opioid litigation and past consumer‑protection suits. He said Minnesota’s multistate work has returned substantial settlements, noting roughly $565,000,000 brought back to Minnesota in prior litigation efforts.

Ellison told the committee that HF 20 appeared to follow the positions of Energy Policy Advocates, which he characterized as a fossil‑fuel industry group that has litigated against state public interest offices. He said court rulings have supported the attorney general’s current data handling. “The majority in the supreme court said that our the way we handle the data is a legal way to handle the data,” he told the committee.

To illustrate potential harm to individuals, Ellison described a scenario in which a small contractor organized as an LLC to raise poultry could be exposed to retaliation by a larger contracting company if data provided to the attorney general during an investigation were later disclosed to the defendant under HF 20. “This person could be retaliated against,” Ellison said.

Ellison also disputed claims that the attorney general’s office lacks transparency, noting that the office operates as a law firm with attorney‑client and work‑product privileges that other law offices possess.

No formal committee action on HF 20 was taken during the hearing. Ellison took additional questions, including about federal worker layoffs; he said his office had been contacted by some laid‑off federal employees but had not yet completed outreach with them.

Ellison said his office would continue to litigate and cooperate with other states where possible but warned that HF 20 would “desperately hamper” such efforts if enacted.