Mont. Senate Weighs Privacy Rules Based on Conn. Law
A Montana state senator on Friday urged colleagues not to significantly change his comprehensive privacy bill. SB-384 is based on Connecticut’s law and balances consumer protections with industry “functionality,” Sen. Daniel Zolnikov (R) told the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee at a livestreamed hearing. Industry and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supported Zolnikov's bill at the hearing, but Vice Chair Willis Curdy (D) noted a fast-approaching March 3 deadline to transmit bills to the opposite chamber.
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.
“This has gone through a lot of different people's eyes,” said Zolnikov, saying the proposal was passed among lawyers many times behind the scenes, he said. "Every word in here matters significantly." The Republican supported an amendment with technical changes like additional commas but opposed a separate proposal to remove from the definition of sale exchanges that don’t involve money, referred to in the bill as “other valuable consideration.” Data is exchanged for things that aren’t “hard cash,” he said, such as advertising that can be worth millions of dollars.
"This should be federal law ," but for now privacy bills must be passed in the states, said Zolnikov. The more states that pass bills, the less resistance there will be in Congress because they don’t want a 50-state patchwork, he said. California has the most regulatory model and it’s “not functional for industry,” he said. At the other end of the spectrum, Utah’s “watered down” law may not give consumers the protection they would expect, he said.
Industry supporters at the hearing included Microsoft, Charter Communications and the State Privacy and Security Coalition (SPSC). "This is a balanced approach” that businesses can implement, said General Counsel Andrew Kingman for the SPSC, which represents businesses and trade groups from various industries.
Laws are the best way for industry to regain consumer trust, said Ryan Harkins, Microsoft senior director-public policy. SB-384 would apply to modern online datasets and give consumers rights to access, correct, delete and port data to other companies, he said. He praised the bill for allowing consumers to opt out of certain sensitive activities like targeted advertising, creating profiles for automated decision-making and selling personal data. Also, Microsoft likes that it would include opt-in consent for sensitive data like geographic information and biometrics, while prohibiting dark patterns to trick consumers to obtain consent. Lawmakers should keep the bill’s definition of sale due to the prevalence of data transactions that don’t involve cash, he said.
ACLU Montana thinks the bill is a “good start,” said lobbyist Robin Turner. No opponents or neutral witnesses testified Friday, though Zolnikov predicted more groups will “come out of the woodwork” with suggested changes if the bill advances. The senator said to expect more adjustments to come but pledged not to “give the farm away” on consumer protection.
States continue to be at the center of privacy action, said Harkins. Maryland lawmakers had a privacy bill hearing earlier last week (see 2302220055). Harkins is glad to see more interest lately at the federal level, but the Microsoft official said, "you can bet against Congress doing something, and 98% of the time you will be right."