Pelosi: House Privacy Bill Not Strong Enough to Supplant California's

The House Commerce Committee’s bipartisan privacy legislation isn’t strong enough to replace privacy laws like those in California, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Thursday. Some 50 public interest groups demanded she hold a vote on the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (see 2208250040).

Pelosi “commended” the committee for its work in passing the bill but noted California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Privacy Protection Agency and state leaders say the bill doesn’t “guarantee the same essential consumer protections” as California. She applauded her state’s passage this week of a new kids-appropriate design bill (see 2208310049). “With so much innovation happening in our state, it is imperative that California continues offering and enforcing the nation’s strongest privacy rights,” she said. “In the days ahead, we will continue to work" with Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., "to address California’s concerns,” she said. Pallone has spoken of his desire to work with California members, who targeted the bill’s perceived weaknesses during markup (see 2207200061).

Pallone said in a statement he looks forward to continued discussions with Pelosi about strengthening the bill: "It’s critical that we put people back in control of their online data and create a strong national privacy standard. This is the most robust and comprehensive legislation to protect Americans’ privacy, and I’m laser focused on building support for final legislation that can be brought to the House floor and become law.”

California shouldn’t be dictating privacy rules for the rest of the country, said House Commerce Committee ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Friday in response to Pelosi's comments on privacy negotiations. Rodgers called California the “home of Big Tech and the societal ills it has brought.” She noted her bipartisan, bicameral bill, American Data Privacy and Protection Act, gained more than 80% support in a recent poll, and the bill passed the House Commerce Committee 53-2.

“Advocacy groups agree” the bill provides the “most robust privacy protections to date in the U.S., even stronger than California,” she said. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro said: “No single state should stand in the way of privacy protections for all Americans or try to set the standard for the rest of the country.” The bill is “far from perfect,” but it’s an “important compromise that would empower all Americans with basic consumer privacy rights while balancing consumer protection and innovation,” he said.

Pallone and House Democrats focused attention this past week on continued data privacy concerns due to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade (see 2207220053 and 2208290052). Pallone, House Health Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., House Oversight Subcommittee Chairwoman Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and House Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., on Thursday requested a briefing on how Meta is handling police requests for sensitive information on abortion activity. Meta “will increasingly be asked to turn over data to law enforcement for the purpose of criminalizing those who seek abortion services,” they wrote. “Personal conversations about accessing health care services may now be considered evidence of crimes by law enforcement in certain jurisdictions.”

They requested a briefing on Meta’s “treatment of personal data, its policies and procedures regarding the sharing of that data with law enforcement and other outside parties, and any steps that Meta is taking to provide users with greater security of their data and greater clarity as to the circumstances under which Meta would release that data to a third party.” The company declined comment.

Privacy experts offered differing views Thursday about the validity of data privacy concerns due to the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson ruling that overturned Roe. Police have contracts with data brokers, which enable law enforcement access to microscopic details about personal lives without subpoena or warrant, said University of Virginia law professor Danielle Citron Thursday during a Federalist Society event. Entities with access to online data should be collecting only information necessary to provide services, she said: The less data collected, the less complicated the privacy debate.

The rush to turn the Dobbs decision into a data privacy debate is “surprising,” said Steptoe & Johnson attorney Stewart Baker. Many concerns are based on anecdotal evidence that law enforcement is going to track people’s movements to and from reproductive clinics, he said. Those clinics won’t exist in states that ban them, he said. And he denied there’s any hard evidence states will look to prosecute individuals seeking services in bordering states. He likened the situation to the legalization of marijuana, saying anti-legalization states aren’t pursuing prosecution in states where marijuana sales are legal.

There are questions about whether Dobbs creates something that needs to be regulated, with the clinics the focus of enforcement, or whether individuals should be held criminally liable, said University of Arizona law professor Jane Bambauer. If it’s more of a regulatory issue, that solves a lot of the privacy concerns people have about law enforcement, she said. She said political minorities in red states are creating a lot of anxiety about how vigorously police will pursue data.