Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Brokers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee trims data-broker bill, removes consumer deletion mandate and keeps study
Summary
The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee reviewed a narrowed amendment to H.211 that removes a mandatory consumer deletion mechanism, narrows the bill's definition of "publicly available information," preserves a study on deletion options, and leaves questions about enforcement and an education-technology registry to resolve.
The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee advanced discussion Tuesday on an amended version of H.211, a data-broker bill that staff described as a "slimmed-down" draft intended to address advocates' concerns while keeping key oversight tools.
Chair (speaker 1) opened the meeting and said the committee’s objective was to vote the bill as soon as possible; "My objective is to vote this out this morning," the chair said. Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Council (speaker 4) then walked members through draft 3.2 of the committee amendment to H.211 and identified the bill’s principal edits.
Why it matters: The amendment narrows the statute’s definition of "publicly available information" by removing several enumerated subparts from the house draft while retaining categories such as biometric data, certain visual depictions, genetic data and intimate images. A major substantive change in the amendment is the removal of the deletion mechanism: the prior version would have required data brokers to maintain an online deletion interface and appeal process. That subsection was excised; related cross-references and exemptions were reworked accordingly.
Supporters and concerns: Members and counsel said the narrowed definition addresses some committee concerns. Jamie Fien of the Consumer Data Industry Association (speaker 3) thanked the panel for removing the deletion mechanism but raised a legal question about enforcement: "With the deletion mechanism gone, we have a section that only addresses registration administrative functions. So I guess I'd ask, is that an appropriate use for private right of action," Fien said, noting that without deletion-related damages consumers may lack standing to sue.
Rick Segal responded that the chapter’s cross-references to the Consumer Protection Act (chapter 62) are being clarified so the legislature can deliberately decide which subchapters carry a private right of action; he said the attorney general retains enforcement authority and that consumers could theoretically sue if they can show damages.
Implementation details: The amendment keeps a requirement that the secretary of state publish a publicly accessible registry spreadsheet listing data-broker registrations. Because the deletion mandate was removed, the registry no longer must include deletion links; the secretary of state's list will instead provide registrant contact and product information as specified in the draft.
Remaining questions and next steps: Committee members pressed on enforcement and costs. Members asked whether the attorney general would be required to enforce registry obligations; counsel said the AG’s office declined to accept broad enforcement responsibility in earlier conversations. The committee also agreed to retain a study on deletion mechanisms so lawmakers can explore centralized or simplified options in the future.
The committee did not take a final vote in the meeting; the chair scheduled further review and said the panel aims to vote on the vehicle the following morning at 8:30 a.m.
