Mass. Panel Weighs Privacy, Net Neutrality Bills
Industry groups warned about high compliance costs from a proposed Massachusetts Information Privacy Act, at a virtual hearing Wednesday. Consumer privacy advocates said MIPA could be the strongest state law in the country. The Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity heard testimony on 40 bills, including net neutrality, privacy, broadband, digital equity and RF safety.
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.
Massachusetts could follow California, Virginia and Colorado in making comprehensive data privacy laws if it enacts S-46 by Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem (D) or H-142 by Democratic Reps. David Rogers and Andres Vargas. “We don't search Google,” said Rogers: “Google searches us.” Creem said the bill is needed because companies are “tracking our every move” and collecting more than we “want them to know.”
MIPA got wide support from privacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Fight for the Future. They applauded the proposed law for including opt-in provisions and enforcement through a private right of action and dedicated state agency. Those and other aspects make it too costly and burdensome, countered TechNet, the Internet Association and other business witnesses. Make sure MIPA is interoperable with the other state laws, they said.
Follow Virginia’s model, said Internet Association interim Head-State Government Affairs John Olsen. IA supports an opt-out approach, enforcement only by the state attorney general, and a right to cure allowing companies to address possible violations. S-46 is the “most extreme and unworkable” state bill so far, said State Privacy and Security Coalition counsel Anton van Seventer of DLA Piper. It requires multiple opt-ins for services consumers already use and imposes onerous costs on businesses, he said: The private right of action benefits the plaintiffs’ bar more than consumers.
MIPA would limit what data companies may collect, which is better than providing only a right to know what was collected, said EPIC Deputy Director Caitriona Fitzgerald. Without strong enforcement, including the private right of action in the Massachusetts bill, “you may as well not pass a privacy bill,” she said. Legislators should question industry groups asking to copy other state privacy laws because none are “very good,” she said: Virginia’s was written by the tech industry.
The committee's Senate Chair Barry Finegold (D) wants to balance people's privacy concerns with a “friendly business environment,” he said at the hearing's conclusion. The federal government probably won't act “anytime soon,” so “we have to step up and do something.” House Chair Linda Dean Campbell (D) agreed near-term federal action is unlikely and “achieving that balance is critical.”
Net Neutrality
The committee heard testimony on a net neutrality bills H-134 by Rogers and S-48 by Sen. James Eldridge (D). Such bills failed in previous years (see 2012080045 and 1910240024). H-134 would require ISPs to disclose policies and establish a state registry. S-48 would require ISPs to adhere to net neutrality rules and ban state contracts with those that don’t. And it would ban ISPs during the COVID-19 emergency from imposing data caps, increasing prices or adding fees.
Campbell sees much support for net neutrality and a small window to act, she said. Finegold asked Eldridge about the status of passing a national bill. Eldridge said a bill by U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D) has bipartisan support but not the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Without federal action, the state should act, said Eldridge: It would “apply more pressure” on Washington.
Net neutrality and other bills proposing to regulate broadband aren’t needed and might violate federal law, testified New England Cable and Telecommunications Association President Timothy Wilkerson. NECTA members don’t block, throttle or interfere with traffic, he said: If there are violations, existing state and federal law allows for investigation and penalties. FCC action is likely under President Joe Biden, he added.
States have power to make their own open-internet rules, responded Rogers, citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 2019 Mozilla ruling vacating part of an FCC net neutrality order. Speculation about what the Biden administration will do shouldn’t stop Massachusetts, Rogers said.
Committee chairs supported a broadband adoption program proposed by Rep. Frank Moran (D). H-131 would address digital equity, including racial disparities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, he said. Campbell said she sees strong support and Finegold said he hopes for quick action. NECTA supports the bill but suggests legislators amend it to better align it with the federal Emergency Broadband Benefit, said Director-Legislative and External Affairs Kristin Grazioso.
Several bills sought scrutiny of RF emission effects. Massachusetts for Safe Technology Director Cecelia Doucette supported many proposals, including H-115 to develop guidance for buying wireless internet service in schools that prioritizes students’ health and safety. In the pandemic, students got wireless tablets with no safety instructions, said Doucette: “We need to be vigilant about invisible toxins.”
"We need to take this issue very seriously," said Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D). She compared wireless frequencies to peanuts, which don't harm many people but can seriously harm those who are allergic.