Fla. Privacy Bill 'Back and Forth' Expected After House Passage
The Florida House set up a potential fight with the opposite chamber after passing the Senate’s comprehensive privacy bill Wednesday, with amendments. Meanwhile, a New Hampshire House committee kicked the can for six months on its own privacy bill. Earlier this week, Indiana’s Eric Holcomb (R) became the seventh governor to sign a privacy bill into law.
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.
Florida House members voted 106-10 to return SB-262 to the Senate with many changes, forcing that body to reconsider its bill after passing it unanimously Friday (see 2304280055). One House-adopted amendment included revising the definition of targeted advertising, a controversial issue in committee hearings. The amended bill would allow consumers to opt out from companies “displaying to a consumer an advertisement selected based on personal data obtained from that consumer's activities over time.” Another adopted amendment includes additional protections for children and a proposed ban on surveillance without consumer consent. A third change clarifies what to do with money recovered by the attorney general.
“I suspect we’ll have some back and forth with the Senate,” said Rep. Anna Eskamani (D) before voting yes for the amended bill at the webcast floor vote. Voting no, Rep. Allison Tant (D) said she preferred the Senate version because she worries the House changes on targeted ads will hurt small businesses. Also, the surveillance ban could require stores to ask permission before they use security cameras for preventing theft, she said.
"This bill doesn't stop companies from profiting off of us,” said Rep. Fiona McFarland (R). “It just gives us the ability to opt out if we want to." McFarland proposed the amendments and has been the House’s lead privacy bill sponsor for multiple sessions. She said the surveillance ban still allows stores to use video recording for theft purposes; they wouldn’t be able to use facial recognition and "track our every gaze as we move around the store and link it to us as a consumer without our consent.”
A New Hampshire baker’s dozen diverged Wednesday with House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Lynn (R) on a privacy bill. The bipartisan group supported a motion by Rep. Marjorie Smith (D) to retain SB-255, allowing six more months to work on the bill. The vote at the livestreamed meeting was 13-7. "While we understand that many other states have moved ahead on legislation that is pretty close to this … New Hampshire likes to march to its own drummer and to be particularly careful since we are such a small state,” said Smith. "If we were cavalier in our decisions, it could come back to haunt us." Privacy should be a federal issue, added Smith, saying she hopes other states passing bills will encourage Congress.
Lynn said he's disappointed. "Even if this bill is not perfect, it does advance the ball." With an amendment the chair had planned to offer, SB-255 would have essentially mirrored Connecticut, Virginia and Colorado laws, he said. States with different political persuasions extensively reviewed requirements like those in New Hampshire’s bill and found them appropriate, he said. Lynn’s amendment would have included limiting the bill’s right to cure so that the AG would be forced to provide an opportunity to address violations without penalty only in the law’s first year, he said. Lynn won’t support adding a private right of action but will join further talks, he said. “It would be better to pass it now.”
"We're not going to fall off the cliff" by waiting six months, responded Rep. Walter Stapleton (R). The extra time will allow New Hampshire to see how well Connecticut’s law performs, he said. Earlier in the meeting, Stapleton said he was disturbed by the AG office saying the bill would be impossible to enforce with current resources (see 2304190034). Rep. Eric Turer (D) also said that concerned him.
Even without the capacity, at least the AG office would have the authority to enforce, said Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R), who joined Lynn in voting against punting. "Leaving it behind doesn't allow us any course of action at all if something were to happen." Legislators could always revise a New Hampshire law if needed, or repeal it if a federal law is enacted, she said: "Not sure what we can really make better in the next six months.”
"Sometimes things can't be changed" after a bill is passed, noted Rep. Louise Andrus (R), saying she sees many unanswered questions in the bill. New Hampshire should regulate itself before regulating private businesses, said Rep. Joe Alexander (R).
Holcomb signed Indiana’s privacy bill (SB-5) on Monday. The bill passed the legislature in mid-April (see 2304140050). Consumer Reports, which sought a veto, urged legislators Tuesday to amend the bill before the law takes effect in 2026. “A closer examination will reveal that there are many loopholes businesses can use to evade the protections considered in this law,” said CR policy analyst Matt Schwartz. “Adding a universal opt-out provision would be a great start to strengthening the law.”
Indiana’s law looks much like the one in Virginia, blogged International Association of Privacy Professionals fellow Anokhy Desai. "Covered entities under this law will not only have a long lead time to the date for compliance in 2026 but will likely have little extra work in terms of implementing new compliance measures if they are already on track to comply with the Virginia law.”