Wicker-House Commerce Privacy Draft Draws More Mixed Feedback
The American Data Privacy and Protection Act discussion draft floated by House Commerce Committee leaders and Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., drew mixed reaction from Friday into Monday from stakeholders. The proposal directs the FTC to set…
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.
national rules on what types of data tech companies can collect from users and how they can disseminate it. It would also grant a limited private right of action and preempt many state-level privacy statutes (see 2206030058). “This draft shows that there is a bipartisan path forward on long-overdue legislation to protect consumers’ privacy,” said Center for Democracy and Technology President Alexandra Reeve Givens. “While it’s not perfect, the draft is a hopeful first step.” The group recognizes “that there will be negotiations that require difficult trade-offs, but now is the time for that work to happen,” she said. The Computer & Communications Industry Association gave a tepid response that didn’t point to specific elements of the Wicker-House Commerce draft. “Internet traffic crosses state and international boundaries and internet users need basic protections to travel with them,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers. “Strong baseline privacy protections are key to consumer trust and we appreciate members of Congress working toward this goal.” The 21st Century Privacy Coalition “appreciates the discussion draft’s efforts to achieve a comprehensive national privacy effort” and looks “forward to reviewing the bill in detail and providing feedback. However, we are concerned about the bill’s failure to include certain communications services in the comprehensive framework.”