Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary Committee advances data-broker registry bill to consent calendar
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee moved HB 16‑94 — a bill requiring data brokers to register and respond to state-forwarded deletion or opt‑out requests — to the consent calendar after testimony from privacy advocates and industry groups. The committee voted 15‑0 to report the bill.
Representative Alice Wade opened the committee’s hearing on HB 16‑94, a data‑privacy bill that would require data brokers operating in New Hampshire to register annually, disclose data‑practices, meet baseline cybersecurity standards and, in Wade’s version, allow residents to make a single portal request to the secretary of state’s office that the state would forward to all registered brokers.
Wade framed the bill as a response to a multibillion‑dollar industry that builds “detailed profiles on nearly every Granite Stater,” collecting browsing, purchase and location data. She told the committee the bill was modeled on Texas’s data‑broker act and included “one key improvement” — a single online portal to simplify access, deletion and opt‑out requests for consumers.
Industry witnesses urged caution. Zachary Taylor of the Consumer Data Industry Association urged the committee to reject HB 16‑94, saying “we are respectfully opposed to 16 94 because the core provisions of this bill are already existing in the state's comprehensive data privacy statute.” Taylor told the committee the proposal’s portal language resembles California’s Delete Act and warned of high implementation costs and consumer confusion.
William Chenes Martinez, counsel to a State Privacy and Security Coalition, did not take a position on registration specifically but warned the bill’s broad “opt out for any purpose” approach would undercut ordinary and necessary processing — such as fraud prevention or account functionality — that New Hampshire’s comprehensive law currently protects.
Sponsor Wade acknowledged the proposal increases the fiscal note for the portal but said she would work with the committee to pare costs while keeping a registry and better transparency. Committee members pressed the sponsor on scope and enforcement against foreign firms; Wade and witnesses said the practical footing would mostly affect entities operating in the U.S. and those that collect data on Granite Staters.
After closing testimony, the committee met in executive session. Representative Alexander moved the committee report and the roll call returned 15 yes, 0 nays. The committee placed HB 16‑94 on the consent calendar and instructed Representative Alexander to write the committee report.
What happens next: HB 16‑94 advances to the House consent calendar; further amendments to narrow registration scope or reduce the portal’s fiscal impact are possible as it moves forward.
Sources: Sponsor testimony and written testimony, Consumer Data Industry Association testimony, committee roll call.
