[News]

• The FAQs conflict with the approach taken in the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020,
• There was no public process for evaluating or considering the cited tools or particular implementations by the browser referenced in the FAQ,
• The FAQs prejudices subject matters on which the new California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has been directed to promulgate rules.

Recent Congressional hearings that have touched on privacy issues have included one in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Transforming the FTC: Legislation to Modernize Consumer Protection; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Big Data, Big Questions: Implications for Competition and Consumers; and a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Protecting Consumer Privacy.

Senators Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., have introduced the Setting and American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act. Focusing on children’s privacy issues, Representative Kathy Castor, D-Fla., introduced the Protecting the Information of our Vulnerable Children and Youth Act. So far in the current session of Congress well over 100 bills have been introduced addressing some form of privacy, Sec. 230 or social networks and platform reforms.

There is near unanimity among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, consumer advocates and the tech and advertising industries that everyone would be well served by a strong national privacy law. There is even broad agreement on many of the contours such a law should take. Unfortunately, given the many other priorities in Congress (infrastructure, the debt ceiling, the budget, etc.) and an atmosphere of bi-partisan deadlock and mistrust, it does not appear that a national privacy law will be enacted any time soon.

AAF believes a national privacy law would benefit consumers and businesses and is working with the Privacy for America coalition to urge Congress to move forward.

A group called Accountable Tech has petitioned the FTC to “initiate rulemaking to prohibit the anticompetitive practice of surveillance advertising.” AAF would oppose such a rulemaking and is concerned by the inflammatory moniker of “surveillance advertising.” We believe that the responsible use of data to enable interest-based advertising provides great benefits to both businesses and consumers and should, with appropriate safeguards, be permitted under a national privacy standard.

To date, AAF is unaware of any Commission response to either request.

Registration is open and the cost is only $50. Information on a hotel room block will be available soon.

Many things have changed in Washington, DC since our last event, but one thing that has not—and will never—change is the importance of making our voice heard on the issues that impact how advertising industry professionals do their jobs.

Register now and plan to be in Washington, DC for AAF’s Advocacy and Action: Advertising Day on the Hill. Please contact AAF’s EVP, Government Affairs, Clark Rector if you have any questions.