Proposed Nebraska Ad Tax Still Alive

The Advertising Services Tax Act in Nebraska remains a threat. The measure, originally proposed by Governor Jim Pillen (R) currently does not appear to have enough votes to pass. Sources in the Capitol report that the Governor and sponsors are still searching for support. The tax would place a 7.5% tax on all advertising services in the state for companies with over $1 billion in US revenue.

AAF Nebraska continues to work to defeat the tax. The industry correctly notes that the tax will be passed through to local businesses in the form of either higher advertising costs or as a line item on the invoice for the service provider ultimately resulting in higher prices for Nebraska consumers.

As previously reported, two members of AAF Nebraska, including Legislative Chair Robert Richardson, testified against the measure before the Legislative Revenue Committee, and many others in the group submitted letters of opposition. Richarson also submitted an op-ed to the Nebraska Examiner voicing opposition to the ad tax.

On March 27, AAF Nebraska conducted the Ad Day Under the Dome. The Chapter invited Senators from the Revenue, Banking, Commerce, Insurance, Educational, and Business & Labor Committees to a “Legislative Breakfast” to share economic data on the impact the advertising industry brings to Nebraska’s economy and share concerns about the proposed advertising tax and data privacy issues. After breakfast, attendees walked across the street to the Capitol Building to meet with other Senators and staff about the issues. After the event, AAF Nebraska members followed up with calls and emails to the State Senators with whom they were unable to speak.

The Ad Day Under the Dome is an excellent example of the power and importance of the AAF grassroots network.

State Privacy Update

In the absence of federal action, individual states continue to consider new privacy bills. While AAF supports a national privacy law, we often provide comments to state lawmakers with the goal of ensuring all state laws align as closely as possible with others for ease of business compliance and to ensure all consumers receive the same degree of protection.

On March 21, 2024, Florida HB 3 (a bill to prohibit minors under the age of 15 from having social media accounts) was signed by Senate and House leadership. Governor Ron DeSantis (R) approved the bill which will take effect on January 1, 2025.

The Georgia Consumer Privacy Protection Act under SB 473 was heard on March 13, 2024 in the House Technology & Infrastructure Innovation Committee. We provided our comments to Georgia lawmakers. The Georgia General Assembly adjourned in late March without passing privacy legislation.

The Kentucky legislature has sent omnibus privacy legislation to Governor Andy Beshear (D) to sign, veto, or allow it to become law without his signature. Because the measure was relatively business and consumer friendly, AAF did not weigh in on the bill.

The Maine Joint Judiciary Committee has held numerous closed work sessions on two privacy bills LD 1973 and LD 1977 each of which have undergone numerous changes. We submitted a letter to the committee raising issues with the proposals on 3/18. We anticipate sending another to legislative leadership once the Joint Judiciary Committee advances a version of the pending privacy legislation to the floor.

We have provided our views on privacy legislation in Maryland which exists in many versions. HB 567 (updated draft here) was heard in the Senate Finance Committee. Its companion, SB 541 (updated draft here) was heard in the House Economic Matters Committee. The Senate bill would, in part, remove the original bill’s opt in consent requirement for marketing and content personalization as well as create a cure period for violations that occur on or before April 1, 2027. The House version of the bill does not include those same changes. In order to become law the bills must be reconciled in a conference committee prior to the General Assembly’s expected adjournment on April 8. We have also expressed our opposition to a briefly considered advertising tax in Maryland.

In addition to the letter, AAF’s EVP of Government Affairs, Clark Rector, and industry colleagues spent much of March 5 in Annapolis talking to lawmakers and their staffs about our concerns with the bills.

We have written to Minnesota lawmakers regarding omnibus privacy legislation. The bill has been through multiple versions and committees. As of this writing, there is no action scheduled, but the primary sponsor has indicated a desire to move forward.

Early in the month, we provided comments on Vermont legislation that was later passed by the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development and subsequently by the full House. The passed version of the bill includes a Private Right of Action, a requirement to disclose the names of third-party partners in response to an access request, an “individual” and “general” opt-out specific to data brokers, and other terms that diverge from privacy legislation in other states. We anticipate the legislation will be considered in the Senate soon and will provide comments when appropriate.

New York Legislature Continues Scrutiny of Food Advertising

New York State lawmakers continue to consider legislation designed to “protect children from junk food companies targeting them with false or misleading advertisements.” AAF, joined by AAF Buffalo, AAF Greater Rochester, and AAF District 2 have written to Assembly leaders and Governor Kathy Hochul (D) to express our opposition and explain how the legislation is overly broad with vague and undefined terminology and runs counter to the First Amendment protections for truthful and non-deceptive advertising.

FTC Considers Changes to COPPA

The AAF supported Privacy for America has submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission in response to the FTC’s proposed revisions to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The comments “welcome the clarifications, and we recognize the Commission’s efforts to hew closely to COPPA itself in several areas of this rulemaking.” The comments dig deeper into several issues:

1. preserving responsible data practices that do not, and should not, require verifiable parental consent;
2. proposed new factors in the “website or online service directed to children” and how these will unduly expand the reach of the COPPA Rule and increase uncertainty in its application;
3. providing meaningful notices and consent for parents;
4. proposed content-based restrictions on speech that likely violate the First Amendment; and
5. additional definitional considerations raised by the NPRM.

AAF Government Affairs Committee Look at Political Advertising

In March, the AAF Government Affairs Committee hosted a meeting to focus on digital advertising—and what unique demands political advertisers (and their agencies and ad partners) must satisfy to comply with state and federal regulations, as well as to adhere to self-regulatory and ethics principles embodied in self-regulation. Speakers from Digital Advertising Alliance explained the DAA’s Political Ad icon and transparency/registry platform.

AAF members who were unable to attend live can view the recording of the meeting by clicking below.