The Florida House’s privacy bill might have hit a dead end in the state Senate. With lawmakers set to adjourn Friday, Rep. Fiona McFarland (R) legislative aide Clay Gunter told us Monday he doesn’t expect any more movement on HB-9, which passed the House last week by a wide margin (see 2203020069). The bill is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the panel hadn’t scheduled HB-9 for hearing as of Monday. Senate President Wilton Simpson (R) and Judiciary Chairman Danny Burgess (R) didn’t comment. A Florida Senate privacy bill (SB-1864) hasn't moved since it was introduced Jan. 18. The chambers couldn't agree last year on enforcement. Wisconsin and Washington state privacy bills face Thursday legislative deadlines. In New York state, Attorney General Letitia James (D) listed data privacy and other internet-related problems Friday as the top consumer complaint she got last year, with more than 8,000 such complaints filed. Citing the AG list, New York Senate Consumer Protection Chairman Kevin Thomas (D) said Monday he will advocate to pass his privacy bill (S-6701). “New Yorkers should not have to sacrifice their safety or privacy when engaging in the digital world,” he said. Thomas’ committee cleared S-6701 last month (see 2202080051).
A federal court said it’s precluded by the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) from reviewing Maryland’s digital ad tax. But U.S. District Court in Baltimore may review a challenge to an amendment to the Maryland Digital Ad Tax Act (Data) that prohibited companies from passing the tax’s cost onto consumers, said Judge Lydia Griggsby in a Friday order in case 21-cv-00410-LKG. Plaintiffs indicated they will fight on.
New York’s affordable broadband law “regulates broadband rates” even though the state lacks authority, former FCC members Ajit Pai (R), Mike O’Rielly (R), Mignon Clyburn (D) and Jonathan Adelstein (D) told a federal court. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals received amicus briefs Wednesday supporting ISP associations that challenged the state law, enjoined by a lower court, that would require $15 monthly plans (see 2202230067). New York’s law “sets a price ceiling for two levels of broadband service … and price caps have been one of the main methods for regulating the rates charged for communications services in the United States,” the ex-commissioners wrote in case 21-1975. It may regulate rates only for New York households, but “this does not transform quintessential rate regulation into something else.” Broadband classification is irrelevant, the ex-commissioners said. “While much ink has been spilled debating whether broadband is an information service” regulated under Title I of the Communications Act or a telecom service under Title II, “that question does not determine the proper resolution of this case. Whatever the answer, broadband remains an interstate communications service, and broadband rates may not be regulated by state governments.” Lawful ways exist for states and the federal government to subsidize broadband for low-income households, the ex-commissioners added. One example is New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s (D) $1 billion ConnectAll effort, which includes encouraging signups for the federal affordable connectivity program, they said. Others agreed. New York’s law “is not only preempted by federal law but unnecessary and counterproductive,” NCTA said. The Competitive Carriers Association said it “constitutes direct rate regulation of an interstate communications service.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, TechFreedom and Digital Progress Institute also urged the court to uphold the injunction by U.S. District Court in Central Islip, New York.
Utah could be the fourth state with a comprehensive privacy law. The Senate voted 25-0 Thursday to concur with House amendments to SB-227. In Connecticut, a privacy bill (SB-6) got thumbs up from Microsoft, Consumer Reports and the state attorney general’s office at a livestreamed hearing Thursday. Comcast and TechNet said the bill would be mostly interoperable with other state laws, but suggested some edits.
Connecticut should quickly adopt one-touch, make-ready (OTMR) so it can take advantage of coming federal broadband support, said two state offices in Tuesday comments at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. "Creating a streamlined and efficient broadband infrastructure deployment process is increasingly important in light of critical timelines for use of federal funding for broadband expansion,” wrote the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection's Energy and Technology Policy Bureau in docket 19-01-52RE01. Because Connecticut's telecom infrastructure "is predominantly aerial, expediting" communications attachments "will be a key component in meeting program timelines." The bureau supports adopting OTMR based on the FCC’s process, "along with a dispute resolution process to ensure accelerated timelines for attachments and reduced backlogs of application processing in order to reduce barriers to entry and increase competition" among ISPs, it said. PURA must complete setting up OTMR based on the FCC process to ready Connecticut for $100 million from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, said the Office of Consumer Counsel. PURA should oversee a speedy dispute resolution process for pole disputes, OCC added. CTIA urged PURA to adopt FCC pole attachment rules. "The FCC’s rules contain the most widely used OTMR framework in the country, including a self-help remedy; the FCC’s rules address cost allocation and have been thoroughly examined and declared compensatory; and the FCC’s rules contain dispute resolution rules that have been used to resolve more disputes than any other pole dispute resolution rules in the nation." The New England Cable and Telecommunications Association supported an FCC-based OTMR process with “modest revisions,” including shortening time frames for owners to review applications. United Illuminating supported OTMR for simple attachments only. Don’t reduce FCC time frames now, as that “can always be revisited” after the process is in place, UI said. Communications Workers of America raised safety and contractual concerns. PURA should "carefully craft any OTMR practices to be adopted so as to prevent the threatened harm to the safety and economic well-being of the workers” and possible interference with CWA’s collective bargaining agreement with Frontier Communications, the union said.
The Florida House voted 103-8 to pass a comprehensive privacy bill Wednesday with a private right of action (PRA). HB-9 sponsor Rep. Fiona McFarland (R) “stood strong against an onslaught of special interest opposition to do what is right for the people of Florida,” said Speaker Chris Sprowls (R) at the livestreamed floor session. The House bill's fate is uncertain in the Senate, which opposed including a PRA in the privacy bill that passed the House last year.
The Florida Public Service Commission unanimously approved a staff recommendation on pole attachment complaint rules (docket 20210137), at a livestreamed meeting Tuesday. Commissioners also voted 5-0 for a staff recommendation in a related proceeding (docket 20210138) to craft rules for pole inspections, repair and replacement, vegetation management and monetary penalties (see 2110270017). At last month’s meeting, the PSC delayed voting on the complaints item after AT&T suggested several edits (see 2202010049). As Florida PSC General Counsel Keith Hetrick suggested at the previous meeting, staff adjusted the proposed order to incorporate two uncontroversial wording changes suggested by AT&T, while rejecting the carrier’s other proposals. At Tuesday's meeting, staff adjusted the other item on repair and vegetation in response to concerns raised by Florida Power and Light. A 2021 state law required the PSC to make pole-attachment rules and reverse preempt FCC authority. “The proposed pole attachment complaints rule approved today provides better guidance for parties and gives us needed information to resolve disputes,” said PSC Chairman Andrew Fay. Each attachment rule will take effect 20 days after it's filed with Florida's State Department.
Florida House lawmakers teed up a possible Wednesday vote on comprehensive privacy legislation. Tuesday, during livestreamed floor debate, members adopted by voice an amendment by HB-9 sponsor Rep. Fiona McFarland (R) while rejecting a Democratic attempt to narrow the bill’s scope and add a right to cure to its proposed private right of action.
The Utah Senate voted 28-0 Friday to pass a comprehensive privacy bill, about a week after it was introduced and with the legislature planning to adjourn at the end of this week. Industry supports SB-227, which is now in the House (see 2202240003). Nebraska Sen. Mike Flood (R) doesn’t expect his privacy bill (LB-1188) to advance from committee this year but hopes it starts a conversation, Flood told the unicameral legislature's Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee at a livestreamed hearing Monday. LB-1188 is based on last year’s Uniform Law Commission proposal that hasn’t been implemented in any state, said Flood, acknowledging business and consumer privacy advocate concerns about his bill. Indiana’s Senate-passed SB-358 might have missed a Monday legislative deadline to pass Senate bills in the House. It wasn’t on that day's House calendar. In Washington state, the House Appropriations Committee was to weigh a sweeping amendment Monday -- with a proposed revision -- to HB-1850 that would make the law contingent on the Senate’s Washington Privacy Act (SB-5062) becoming law July 31, 2023. The panel didn’t vote by our deadline. HB-1850 as modified by amendments by Rep. Drew Hansen (D) would set up a state data privacy commission to enforce rules proposed in SB-5062, which regenerated last week (see 2202250017). The amended House bill would include a limited private right of action that would allow consumers to sue only after the commission determines a violation occurred and that the consumer suffered actual damages, meaning demonstrable economic loss or physical harm. Consumers would be able to sue only if the violator fails to comply with the commission's cease and desist order, the amendment said. The amendment also would tweak the proposed commission’s responsibilities and detail a proposed annual fee on processors and controllers. The surcharge would be 0.1% of intrastate gross operating revenue, capped at $10 million yearly. The American Civil Liberties Union, longtime opponent of the Senate privacy bill, is “very concerned that the proposed amendment to HB 1850 references a version of SB 5062 that has not yet been made available to the public,” and that the amended bill could let the privacy commission decide to reject a complaint in private, emailed Jennifer Lee, ACLU-Washington technology and liberty project manager.
Privacy attorneys and consumer advocates are closely watching rulemakings and possible legislative tweaks to three state laws taking effect in the next year and half, they said in interviews. The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) will become law Jan. 1, and the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) takes effect July 1, 2023. More state laws are expected soon.