A private right of action is key to a strong biometric privacy bill in Maryland, said state Sen. Brian Feldman (D) at a Senate Finance Committee meeting livestreamed Wednesday. One problem with allowing only attorney general enforcement is the office's limited resources, said the SB-169 sponsor. "Businesses will simply ignore the law” if individuals can’t sue, said Electronic Privacy Information Center counsel Jake Wiener. Bring back the stronger PRA from last year’s Senate bill, he said. The enforcement provision is more limited in this year’s edition, agreed Feldman: It's based on last year’s House-passed bill, but the committee is welcome to amend. The Computer and Communications Industry Association wants only AG enforcement, with a 30-day right to cure alleged violations. “By creating a new private right of action, the measure would open the doors of Maryland’s courthouses to plaintiffs advancing frivolous claims with little evidence of actual injury,” said CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender in written testimony. SB-169, which requires opt-in consent and applies only to private entities, puts "basic guardrails" to protect increasingly used biometric information like fingerprints and facial recognition scans, said Feldman. “There are essentially no rules” now on how long businesses can retain data and what they can do with it, he said. Assistant AG Hanna Abrams supported the bill, noting there are currently no restrictions on how companies use data. But CCIA said the bill goes “far beyond protecting” consumers’ biometric data, “which could result in degraded consumer services and experience.” Including a definition and compliance obligations for personal information extends the bill’s scope beyond biometrics, it said. “Requiring specific user consent for any data collection or processing would be inconsistent with consumer expectations, introduce unnecessary friction … and likely overwhelm consumers.” Extend the proposed Oct. 1 effective date, added CCIA, noting California, Colorado and Virginia privacy laws delayed enforcement by two years. Other opponents included TechNet and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce.

Arizona Corporation Commission staff recommended delay considering repeal or changes to Arizona USF (AUSF). Commissioners could consider staff’s recommendation at its Feb. 22-23 meeting. Comments are due Feb. 17 in docket T-00000A-20-0336. "Amendment, modification, or repeal of the AUSF High Cost Rules may be appropriate at some time in the future,” staff said. But since Frontier, the sole recipient of the support, must file a rate case by Aug. 30 and "there may be several potential outcomes" to that filing, staff thinks it's premature to consider changing or killing AUSF. If commissioners decide at the end of the rate case that Frontier should stop getting support, they should direct staff to start the AUSF rulemaking, said the recommendation. Also, staff noted Solix remains under contract to distribute E-rate broadband special construction projects, which are expected to be completed by June 2024. Any commission action on USF would need to take into account that program’s status, it said.

The California Public Utilities Commission plans hearings April 18 and May 3 in a rulemaking on changes to service quality reviews, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola ruled Monday in docket R.22-03-016. Wireless and VoIP groups bristled at the possibility of the CPUC applying such rules to their industries (see 2301240058). The ALJ directed telecom companies to help with outreach to customers about the hearings, which start at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. PDT each day.

The Virginia House unanimously supported protecting railroads from broadband construction interference (see 2301270048). Legislators voted 100-0 Monday to send HB-1752 to the Senate.

A Florida bill requiring social media literacy training in public schools cleared the Senate Education Committee in a bipartisan 11-0 vote Tuesday. The state should educate kids on “the addictive nature of social media,” said SB-52 sponsor Sen. Daniel Burgess (R) at the livestreamed meeting. A substitute amendment adopted Tuesday refines the bill to ensure kids’ social media use is focused on career development and sharing information with families and friends, said Burgess: It won’t prevent class-specific uses of social media, such as a career-building class that teaches how to use LinkedIn. Co-sponsor Sen. Rosalind Osgood (D) said the bill is much needed. When she was on a school board, Osgood saw “all the trauma that young people endure because of social media,” she said. "We can't just leave our children alone with their phones.” She later added, “We have to train [children] just like before we give them a car. ... We missed that step with social media.” Sen. Erin Grall (R) said the final bill should ensure social media curriculum keeps up to date and that only age-appropriate content is shared to kids of different ages “so we're not introducing traumatic topics prematurely.” Saying he remains open to suggestions, Burgess agreed reviews should be mandatory to keep educational content current. The bill will help students make “correct use of social media,” and understand its downsides, said Sen. Shev Jones (D), noting he would like to co-sponsor the measure.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission could vote March 21 at 1:30 p.m. CDT on a state USF rulemaking opened Tuesday. Commissioners voted 3-0 at a livestreamed meeting to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (docket RM2023-000006) to consider amending Oklahoma Chapter 59 rules on Oklahoma USF and Lifeline programs. The notice schedules technical conferences 1:30 p.m. CST Feb. 21 and 1:30 p.m. CDT March 13. Comments will be due Feb. 24; replies March 13. Commissioners also voted 3-0 to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking with the same dates for a rulemaking to amend Oklahoma’s Chapter 55 telecom rules (docket RM2023-000005). Commissioners raised concerns about Oklahoma USF stability while voting 2-1 in November to increase the connections-based surcharge to $1.85 from $1.14 monthly (see 2211290052).

The Virginia House passed bills to set privacy rules (HB-1688) and require online safety education for children (HB-1575). Also Friday, House legislators passed HB-2385 to ban TikTok on state government devices. The House voted 96-2 for the kids’ privacy measure and 99-0 for the internet safety and TikTok bills. The bills cleared House committees last month (see 2301230011 and 2301300037) and now move to the Senate.

An Oregon bill to regulate data brokers advanced through the House Business and Labor Committee in a 10-1 vote Monday. Also at the livestreamed hearing, state telecom groups opposed an anti-robocalls bill. The committee voted unanimously to amend the data broker bill (HB-2052) to clarify that an exemption for state and local governments includes public corporations. The amendment also made other technical fixes including to tweak the definition of “licensed” to align with Vermont’s data broker law. Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis voted no on the amended bill. The Republican said she opposed exempting government. Oregon DOJ Legislative Director Kimberly McCullough said she doesn’t think the government engages in data brokering. Another reason for the exemption is structural, said McCullough: It’s usually better to write separate laws for public and private sectors than to try to address them together. “If the government’s not involved in sharing that kind of data, then I’m not sure why they would be exempted in the first place,” responded Boshart Davis. Because the bill has fiscal impact, HB-2052 must go next to the Ways and Means Committee before getting a full House vote. The committee heard testimony but didn’t vote on the robocalls bill (HB-2759), which sponsor and committee Chairman Paul Holvey (D) said would give the Oregon attorney general the authority to hold accountable gateway telecom providers that pass along telemarketing calls from overseas. The bill also includes a private right of action. Oregon DOJ supports the bill, which aligns state law more closely with federal statute, said Deputy Legislative Director Kate Denison. Gateways providers are "actively choosing to ignore suspicious activity because carrying more calls equals more profit," she said. HB-2759 also got support from Oregon Consumer Justice and Oregon Public Interest Research Group. The Oregon Telecommunications Association (OTA) and Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association opposed the bill. OTA members aren’t telemarketing companies and don’t know who the telemarketers are, said Executive Vice President Brant Wolf. "This bill will hold us responsible for something we really can't avoid doing,” he said. "If a number is dialed, we have to complete the call.”

A Montana bill to reduce intrastate phone rates for inmates received unanimous approval in both legislative chambers. The House voted 96-0 Friday to pass SB-7 after the Senate passed it 49-0 last month. The bill would allow county jails to join state prison contracts or create their own contract if they don’t charge more than the current per-minute rate allowed by the FCC -- or 21 cents at most (see 2301260021).

T-Mobile will take California regulators to federal court over a decision to switch state USF contribution to a connections-based mechanism. In a complaint Wednesday against the California Public Utilities Commission (case 3:23-cv-00483), T-Mobile and subsidiaries urged the U.S. District Court of Northern California to preliminarily enjoin a $1.11 monthly per-line fee from taking effect April 1. The CPUC in October required carriers to count access lines to determine contributions to California public purpose programs including state USF (see 2210200073). The per-line fee will replace a revenue-based assessment. A handful of other states previously switched to a flat fee, including Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah.