Digital Ad Tax on the Docket in Massachusetts

Legislation to enact a digital advertising tax was one of many measures considered by the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Revenue during a hearing conducted September 29. While testimony was received, the Committee did not vote on any of the bills considered. AAF signed on to comments submitted to the Committee opposing the tax.

Tucson Considers Ad Tax

The Tucson City Council and Mayor will be considering a number of Proposed Fee Changes submitted by the City Manager that includes enacting a 2.6% tax on advertising. The proposed changes can be voted on by the Council on November 25 at the earliest. AAF has been in touch with AAF Tucson President Adrienne Robertson who is leading the local opposition to the tax.

AAF Again Opposes Restrictions on Census Data Collection

AAF has signed on to a letter urging House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies (D) to oppose a provision in the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill stating “None of the funds in the Act may be used to enforce involuntary compliance, or to inquire more than twice for voluntary compliance with any survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census.” AAF signed a similar letter last year when the provision was considered but not adopted. Both letters emphasized the importance of complete and accurate Census data and notes that the 2020 Census had counted only 28% of U.S. households after the first two contacts. We are again cautiously optimistic the provision will not be enacted.

House Committee Requests Info on Financial Data Privacy

The AAF supported Privacy for America filed comments in response to a request for feedback from the public on current federal consumer financial data privacy law and potential legislative proposals to account for changes in the consumer financial services sector. The request was issued in July by House Committee on Financial Services Chairman French Hill (AR-02) and Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Chairman Andy Barr (KY-06). The Committee has not announced any further actions.

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 at health or location data. 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.
Recent comments filed include:

July 7, 2025: California AB 45 Prohibiting Advertising to Consumers Who are Near or In Certain Health Related Facilities AB 45 would have an overbroad effect by impeding legitimate advertising to Californians if they are merely near a family planning center. The bill also raises First Amendment concerns by blocking advertising to medical professionals and others inside of entities that provide in-person health care services. Read the full letter here. AB 45 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom (D) on September 26, 2025.

July 7, 2025: California AB 322 To Limit the Collection, Use, and Transfer of Precise Geolocation Information If California adopts AB 322, California consumers will be unable to access location-based services that consumers in other states have the freedom to consent to receive. Read the full letter here.

July 8, 2025: California Proposed Amendments to SB 361 Data Broker Registration and Disclosure Requirements The proposed amendments related to unique identifiers are ambiguous and, if incorporated into the bill, would have little to no meaning or value to consumers. Read the full letter here. SB 361 passed the legislature and was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom (D) on September 22. As of the publication of this newsletter he has taken no action.

August 18, 2025: California Privacy Protection Agency Proposed Regulations to Develop and Deploy the Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (“DROP”) under the California Delete Act The proposed regulations would override the CCPA’s robust verification safeguards in favor of an overly broad “matching” standard—one that conflicts with statutory and regulatory requirements and undermines the State’s goal of protecting consumers from privacy harms while respecting their rights and freedoms. Read the full letter here.

September 2, 2025: New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Division of Consumer Affairs, Proposed Privacy Rules We thank the Division for its work in drafting the proposed rules and provide the following comment to identify areas where additional clarity and operational adjustments would improve the proposal. We respectfully request that the Division implement the revisions suggested in this comment to better protect the rights of consumers and to ensure that businesses can continue to thrive in New Jersey. Read the full letter here.

September 18, 2025: California, Veto Request AB 566 To Require an Opt-Out Preference Signal California consumers already have access to opt-out preference signals in the marketplace, making AB 566 unnecessary. AB 566 is also costly, ambiguous, risks harming competition, and delegates broad regulatory authority to the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) without incorporating key, foundational safeguards for opt-out preference signals mandated by the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). Read the full letter here. As of the publication of this newsletter Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has taken no action. He vetoed a similar measure in 2024.

September 23, 2015: Massachusetts S. 2608 Data Privacy Act S. 2608 contains provisions that are out-of-step with privacy laws in other states and will only add to the increasingly complex privacy landscape for both businesses and consumers across the country. Read the full letter here. A substantially amended version of the legislation passed the Senate and has been referred to the House of Representatives Committee on Ways & Means.