Hawley, Schatz Highlight Contrasting Views on White House Tech Bias Effort
The White House soliciting evidence of anti-conservative bias by tech platforms (see 1905160059) is a “good thing,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said last week. Asked about concerns over the administration's requesting information like citizenship status, Hawley told reporters it doesn’t seem much different from congressional offices collecting information for voluntary complaints. “It sends a signal to tech companies that [the White House is] paying attention, and it’s a good thing to be paying attention to.”
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.
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, was under the impression the effort was launched by President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. Informed it was a White House initiative, Schatz called it “deeply creepy.” It raises privacy and power concerns, he told reporters: “It mixes up public policy with politics. … If it’s not authoritarian, it’s the first or second cousin of authoritarianism.”
Hawley and the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee will host a second data privacy hearing Tuesday (see 1903120072 and 1905170073). An ex-FTC staffer, an artificial intelligence expert, an antitrust scholar, a U.K. privacy expert and the founder of AppNexus will testify. The committee should ensure algorithms are “set up in a neutral way,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Graham and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are preparing a letter to various committees to ensure committee collaboration on data privacy, Graham said. Questions of jurisdiction remain, with both Senate Commerce and Banking committee leadership active on the privacy front (see 1905160021). Privacy is mostly within Commerce’s jurisdiction, but Judiciary owns content issues, Graham said. “There’s all kinds of moving parts here, and I’d just like to get the committees of jurisdiction to say where do you think we should go and see if we can work together.” The goal remains to form a joint Judiciary-Commerce task force (see 1902060053), Graham said.
Democrats are still deciding who will participate in such a task force, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said, noting he will join the Republican side. In March, Graham said Hawley and Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; and Chris Coons, D-Del., formed an informal privacy working group.
There’s been some “informal” discussion between Graham and Commerce Democrats, Blumenthal said. He noted any privacy bill could potentially get consideration from both committees. “It will depend on what’s in the bill,” Feinstein said. If the bill includes penalties for privacy violators, “it might come to Judiciary,” she said.
Judiciary is looking to avoid a “jurisdiction fight,” member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told us. On multi-jurisdiction privacy issues, “there’s generally been some communication between the chairmen or the ranking members of the two committees and [they] try to work it out,” Grassley said. “Because it’s so important to get something done.”
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., chairman of Commerce’s Consumer Protection Subcommittee, spoke with Graham briefly last week about data privacy. Moran told Graham he wants to be involved in any data privacy conversations. “We want to keep this as uncomplicated as possible, but we also have no choice but to work with everybody to find out how to make it happen,” Moran said.
On the antitrust front, Blumenthal told reporters DOJ should “definitely” investigate Facebook’s past purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp. “I think the end result would be to break up Facebook if the antitrust laws are applied.”
Hawley on Monday introduced a bill that would let users join a Do Not Track list, similar to the Do Not Call list. The Do Not Track Act would allow consumers to “block online companies from collecting any data beyond what is indispensable to the companies’ online services.” Companies wouldn’t be allowed to transfer user data to other companies “unless the first company is an intended intermediary.” It would include “strict penalties” and force companies to disclose user rights.
Ex-FTC Consumer Protection Bureau Director David Vladeck isn’t optimistic Congress will pass privacy legislation. “Nothing will happen in D.C. because this is the place where good ideas go to die. Congress is incapable of passing a bill,” he said on a National Association of Attorneys General panel Monday. He noted the threat of legal action from industry if states continue passing markedly different privacy bills. Companies will challenge the patchwork in federal court, arguing that the dormant commerce clause doctrine forbids balkanization of privacy legislation, he said: “And they will win.”