Comprehensive Federal Privacy Legislation Introduced

Comprehensive privacy legislation, H.R. 8413, the Securing and Establishing Consumer Uniform Rights and Enforcement over Data Act (SECURE Act) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The AAF has long advocated for a single national privacy law and believes that the SECURE Act reflects a thoughtful and balanced approach to safeguarding individuals’ privacy interests while preserving the benefits enjoyed by millions of Americans in their role as consumers in the data-driven economy.

The SECURE Act is a product of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Privacy Working Group and is sponsored by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA 13), Vice-Chairman of the Committee. While it still has a long road to travel, many Congressional insiders believe the SECURE Act has a chance of being enacted this year.

AAF is working with our partners in Privacy for America to urge the Committee to pass the legislation soon and send it on to the full House of Representatives. Many AAF chapters whose Member of Congress sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee have already contacted them, urging support of the legislation. If and when the bill moves forward, we will work with more chapters as appropriate to urge their representatives to support it as well.

More States Look at Requiring AI Disclosures in Advertisements

Following the enactment of a law in New York requiring advertisements to disclose the use of “synthetic performers,” many other states are considering similar measures. AAF continues to oppose these measures arguing that the use of AI, whether it be “synthetic performers” or other uses is not inherently deceptive. State bills of concern include:

California Senate Bill 1050. AAF response.
Hawai’i HB 2137. AAF Response.
Pennsylvania HB 95. AAF Response.

Date Set for 2027 Advertising Day on the Hill

Mark your calendars. AAF’s 2027 Advertising Day on the Hill will be held on Thursday, March 11, in Washington, DC. Advertising Day on the Hill is when AAF members from across the country come to our nation’s Capital to learn about the issues important to the industry. They then travel to Capitol Hill to meet with their Senators and Representatives to educate them about advertising and advocate for policies that will allow advertising to continue to drive the U.S. economy.

Advertising Day on the Hill is among AAF’s most important and consequential programs. In conjunction with Day on the Hill, the AAF Board of Directors will meet on Wednesday, March 10, and incoming Council of Governors officers will hold their Forward Planning meeting on Friday, March 12.

Much more information will be forthcoming, but start making your plans to join us in Washington, DC, on March 11 for AAF’s Advertising Day on the Hill.

State Privacy Action

In the absence of Congressional action, many states continue to look at passing their own privacy laws, some comprehensive and some more narrowly targeted, such as health, location data, or pricing programs. The AAF does not support the enactment of any of these laws, believing a single national standard would better serve both consumers and businesses. However, in recognition that many states will pass their own laws, in addition to expressing our opposition, we offer suggestions to lawmakers as to how they can make the measures more closely align with existing laws in other states.

3 3 26 Minnesota HF 2700 To Modify the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act
Our concern with the current proposal relates to how the term “health data” is defined. Because the term includes any data that “identifies” a health status, it may unintentionally encompass non-sensitive data, and therefore impact general advertising practices that do not involve identifying or targeting individuals based on actual health conditions. Read the full letter.

3 9 26 Tennessee SB 1998 Prohibits Algorithmic Pricing
SB 1998 would significantly limit Tennessee consumers’ access to discounts and special pricing. Read the full letter.

3 9 26 Maryland SB 889 Prohibiting Surveillance-Based Pricing
SB 889 would fail to adequately protect the everyday value that common pricing practices, such as discounts and personalized offers, provide to Maryland consumers, nor does it recognize that personalized pricing strategies can enhance consumer choice and satisfaction. Read the full letter.

3 9 26 Maryland SB 827 Regulates Designs and Uses of Chatbots
SB 827 would prohibit an operator from processing a user’s “chat log” to determine whether to display an advertisement for a good or service or to customize an advertisement shown to that user. This approach is both overbroad and in tension with Maryland’s existing privacy framework under the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (“MODPA”), which already gives consumers the right to opt out of targeted advertising, rather than eliminating it outright. Read the full letter.

Hawai’i SB 1163 Prohibits the Sale of Geolocation and Internet Browser Information Without Consent
As drafted, SB 1163 would adopt a privacy framework that is out of step with approaches taken by other states, undermine the ad-supported Internet, and disrupt the online marketplace. Read the full letter.

3 26 26 New Hampshire HB 1460 Prohibiting the Sale of Location and Other Sensitive Data Regarding Children
We ask that HB 1460 be harmonized with existing law in New Hampshire. The Senate should focus its efforts on harmonizing the bill with the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act which consistently uses “known child” as the standard, aligned to trigger heightened obligations for children’s data. Read the full letter.

4 6 26 California Privacy Protection Agency Invitation for Preliminary Comments, Reducing Friction in the Exercise of Privacy Rights
We strongly believe that any future regulations should avoid prescribing user-interface design or notice language in a manner that effectively dictates how businesses communicate with consumers or structure their products. Such mandates may raise constitutional concerns and extend beyond the Agency’s authority to regulate. Read the full letter.

4 6 26 Vermont H. 211 Relating to Data Brokers and Personal Information
H. 211 should be updated to clarify that it does not create a private right of action under any law. Instead, enforcement should be vested with the Attorney General (“AG”) alone, because such an enforcement structure would lead to stronger outcomes for Vermont residents while better enabling businesses to allocate resources to developing processes, procedures, and plans to facilitate compliance with the bill’s new requirements. Read the full letter.

4 12 26 Alaska HB 367 Relating to the Privacy of Consumer Personal Information
As currently drafted, HB 357 is significantly out of step with other state omnibus privacy laws. We ask the House Judiciary Committee to harmonize the bill with the consensus approach to data privacy adopted across several states, such as Nebraska and Oklahoma. Read the full letter.

5 7 26 California Privacy Protection Agency, Invitation for Preliminary Comments, Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform Audits
We have concerns about certain topics identified for possible new rulemaking and the direction under consideration by the Agency. Below we provide comments on a non-exhaustive list of issues we have identified with the Agency’s preliminary rulemaking efforts. Read the full letter.