House Republicans, Democrats Highlight Differing Views on State Privacy Pre-emption
It makes no sense for Republicans to support a privacy bill that doesn’t pre-empt state law, House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., told us before the committee’s first 2019 privacy hearing. “We should look at what’s best for the country. Maybe it is California’s law. I don’t think so personally, but we should get schooled up on” state laws, he said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The House Consumer Protection Subcommittee hosted the Tuesday hearing. Chairman Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., told reporters pre-emption should be decided when finalizing legislation. “We’re certainly going to be working for absolutely the strongest bill to protect consumers,” she said: Pre-emption is completely dependent on “how strong a bill we can get. … We can decide at the end -- is this something that can work nationally?”
Like Walden, ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., backed a single national standard that overrides state laws. Many recognize the burdens of a patchwork of laws, a “regulatory minefield” that will force companies to raise prices, she said. Rodgers argued for more industry transparency, improved data security and regulatory protection for small businesses.
Like Schakowksy, House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., urged strong, comprehensive privacy legislation that puts “consumers first.” He didn’t directly address pre-emption. He said previously his preference is to not pre-empt state laws (see 1902130058). FTC enforcement has done little to curb data abuse, Schakowsky said. The agency needs the proper tools and authority to protect privacy, she added.
The goal should be to first define digital civil rights, Center for Democracy & Technology CEO Nuala O’Connor testified. Notice and consent regimes resulted in a burdensome system that places the onus on consumers, she said.
Citing flaws with the EU’s general data protection regulation, American Enterprise Institute Visiting Scholar Roslyn Layton warned against U.S. policy that reduces consumer choice, increases business costs and hinders innovation. It’s not fair for California’s law, which she said was cobbled together in about a week, to dictate policies for the country, she argued.
Two industry witnesses sought one national standard. GDPR shows how data privacy can be harmful to innovation and consumer services, said Interactive Advertising Bureau Executive Vice President-Public Policy Dave Grimaldi, citing reduced EU access to U.S. media content. Business Roundtable Vice President-Technology, Innovation Denise Zheng said the U.S. needs a national, cross-sector law that avoids a patchwork of state laws creating barriers to innovation. Charter Communications repeated its call for a uniform, national privacy standard for all internet-related services.
Congress should pass a federal law that doesn’t pre-empt state laws and establishes a new privacy agency, consumer groups said Tuesday. Color of Change’s Brandi Collins-Dexter joined Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood Executive Director Josh Golin, Electronic Privacy Information Center fellow Christine Bannan and others will brief legislators March 4 on the bill. The legislation is sponsored by Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tom Udall, D-N.M.