Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel hears amendments to Montana consumer data privacy law; insurers seek clarifications
Summary
Sen. Daniel Zolnikov reviewed amendments to Montana's consumer data privacy law that expand protections for young adults, tighten exemptions and lower thresholds for covered entities; insurance and financial representatives asked for narrowly tailored exemptions and clearer interplay with federal GLBA rules.
Sen. Daniel Zolnikov summarized proposed amendments to the Montana Consumer Data Protection Act, telling the House Judiciary Committee the law (effective Oct. 1, 2024) gives consumers rights over online data and that this bill refines definitions, expands protections for people under 18 in some contexts and adjusts thresholds for businesses covered by the law.
Zolnikov said the bill clarifies what constitutes an online service, narrows certain affiliate exemptions, and lowers the consumer threshold for covered entities to reflect Montana’s small population. “If a big company has 25,000 customers…we lower that threshold to 25,000 consumers,” he said, arguing the change targets entities with material consumer footprints while sparing tiny innovators.
Industry witnesses supported most changes but asked for technical fixes. Sarah Clerget of the American Council of Life Insurers and other insurance representatives urged an amendment to preserve GLBA‑based exemptions for banks and life insurers subject to federal rules. Clerget noted that federal Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act safeguards apply to certain insurers and said the proposed language in one subsection raised concerns unless narrowly tailored.
Eric Rosenketter of the Receivables Management Association also opposed removing GLBA‑based affiliate exemptions, arguing the change would create compliance confusion for non‑bank financial institutions and impose additional costs without clear consumer benefits.
Committee members asked how enforcement would work and whether the Attorney General’s office would handle complaints; Zolnikov said enforcement follows established consumer protection pathways (the AG's office) and defended the bill’s design choices as aligning Montana with other states while filling gaps. He also said an insurance exemption amendment had been negotiated and indicated openness to further technical fixes.
What’s next: The committee may consider clarifying amendments to preserve appropriate GLBA exemptions while ensuring consumer protections for covered entities that should be subject to the state law.
