Adam Bender

1 week ago | privacy-daily.com | Adam Bender

“Today marks a gigantic step in protecting our kids,” said Pillen in a news release Friday. The governor added that LB-504 and a few other child safety bills he recently signed (see 2505210009) “provide parents with the tools they need to protect our kids from big tech online companies and predators.”“We’re not going to wait for social media companies to do that anymore,” agreed LB-504 sponsor Carolyn Bosn (R).

1 week ago | privacy-daily.com | Adam Bender

Gov. Phil Scott (R) is expected to let the bill become law without signing it, Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said after it passed. S-69 is the Senate version of a House bill written by Priestley. Scott will have five days from the date that the legislature sends him the measure to sign or veto it, or it becomes law without his signature. Last year, Scott vetoed a broader privacy bill that included a proposed kids code as one piece. The governor didn’t comment Thursday.

1 week ago | privacy-daily.com | Adam Bender

Priestley's privacy legislation got further in 2024. Last year, her comprehensive privacy bill passed the legislature, but Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed it due to its outlier private right of action and other concerns. At Wednesday's meeting, Priestley said stakeholders continue to disagree on enforcement and data minimization language, especially. The state lawmaker is “trying to work on data-minimization changes in coordination” with other New England states, she told the committee.

1 week ago | privacy-daily.com | Adam Bender

|StatesCalifornia appropriators greenlit a plethora of privacy bills at Friday meetings. Assembly and Senate panels ticked through a laundry list of “suspense file” bills, including on age assurance, automated decisions, reproductive health, workplace surveillance and revisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The approved bills could get floor votes next. A location privacy bill won’t go anywhere, however.

2 weeks ago | privacy-daily.com | Adam Bender

Under the original bill’s data-minimization requirement, which effectively copied text from the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act, a controller must limit “the collection of personal data to what is reasonably necessary and proportionate to provide or maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer to whom the data pertains.” The amendment would add to that sentence: “including any routine administrative, operational, website, or account-servicing activity that is consistent...