Minn. Net Neutrality, Broadband Labor, Privacy and Social Media Bills Passed

Minnesota legislators supported net neutrality, data privacy, social media and broadband labor proposals before they adjourned Monday. Gov. Tim Walz (D) will next consider various omnibuses that include the proposed rules. The House voted 70-58 Friday to pass a commerce omnibus (SF-4097), which included net neutrality and social media disclosure proposals that cleared the Senate earlier last week (see 2405160033). On Saturday, the House voted 72-59 to pass a transportation and labor package (HF-5242) including industry-opposed broadband safety rules (see 2405070043). On Sunday, the House voted 70-11 to pass another commerce package (SF-4942), which included language from a comprehensive privacy bill (see 2405100047). Lawmakers passed the House’s broader version of the labor proposal, which includes a controversial provision allowing the state to prioritize broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) and other internet funding for contractors that pay prevailing wage and meet other standards. Senate Labor Committee Chair Jen McEwen (D), who sponsored the Senate's original bill, expects Walz to sign, her spokesperson said Monday. McEwen said she’s “very pleased” the legislature passed the proposal that “will improve worker safety and reduce interruptions to public utilities.” Minnesota Telecom Alliance CEO Brent Christensen, who opposed the labor proposal, told us a veto is unlikely since the governor’s staff was heavily involved in getting the bill passed. Christensen called the net neutrality measure "a really bad bill that didn’t need to happen." The state Commerce Department, which would investigate complaints, doesn't have the right skills to "determine what is a violation and what is normal traffic management," he said. "Any net neutrality action should come from the feds, not individual states." The privacy bill mostly looks like Washington state’s model, which was adopted in states like Virginia and Connecticut, “but with some significant and unique variations,” Husch Blackwell privacy attorney David Stauss blogged Sunday. Differences include “a novel right to question the result of a profiling decision, privacy policy provisions that increase interoperability with existing state laws, and new privacy program requirements such as a requirement for controllers to maintain a data inventory,” he said.