[News]

AAF Grassroots in Action:
Advertising Day on the Hill

On Thursday, March 13, approximately 70 AAF members, from both the corporate and chapter sides of the membership, gathered in Washington, DC for the American Advertising Federation’s Advertising Day on the Hill.

In the morning, attendees heard from experts briefing them on the most important issues concerning advertising, including tax policy and privacy/data security measures. They were also treated to an incisive Social Platforms and Public Policy Panel featuring representatives of AAF members Google, TikTok and Meta.

The afternoon was spent on Capitol Hill where AAF representatives from 25 states had scheduled meetings in the offices of 75 different members of the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as numerous unscheduled “drop-ins.” The visits were an important opportunity to educate lawmakers about the issues and to remind them that advertising creates jobs and drives economic activity in every state and congressional district in the nation.

AAF is the advertising industry’s grassroots with chapters in over 150 markets across the country and Advertising Day on the Hill is the most dramatic example of AAF’s grassroots in action. Many thanks to our Monument Sponsors Google and TikTok and our Reflection Pool sponsor IPG. Thank you also to sponsors Capitol Counsel, Digital Advertising Alliance, and Venable.

Nebraska Day Under the Dome/Marketing Services Tax Threat

AAF grassroots are also active in the states. AAF Nebraska Legislative Chair Robert Richardson Reports on their recent Ad Day Under the Dome event:

The Fourth AAF Nebraska Ad Day Under the Dome took place on March 26, 2023. We began with a Legislative Breakfast Ad Connect across the street from the Nebraska state capitol building and invited State Senators from the Revenue, Banking, Commerce, Insurance, Educational, Business & Labor and other Committees. We shared data on the positive economic impact and jobs the advertising industry brings to Nebraska, as well as our concerns regarding proposed advertising taxes and data privacy issues. The goal was a grassroots effort to build personal connections with Senators so they will keep the advertising community in the forefront when writing and proposing legislation.

We moved on to the 2nd phase of the AAF’s Ad Day Under the Dome event and walked across the street to the Capitol Building. Many senators stepped out of the legislative session to speak with us and others were visited in their offices. We also stopped by the Governor’s office to share our concerns and left materials for future reference. We followed up with calls and emails to all Senators with whom we were unable to speak.

The event proved to be timely as a bill to remove the sales tax exemption for marketing services was introduced in the legislature. While sources in Lincoln believe the bill is unlikely to pass, AAF and AAF Nebraska joined a letter to Governor Jim Pillen (R) opposing the measure. AAF Nebraska played a key role in defeating the Governor’s proposed advertising tax in the previous legislative session.

Maryland Considers and Rejects Ad Tax

Maryland legislators, looking to close a projected budget deficit, considered placing a 2.5 percent tax on many business-to-business service including advertising. AAF alerted its Maryland members and urged them to contact lawmakers expressing their opposition to taxing advertising. In addition, AAF EVP-Government Affairs Clark Rector, a Maryland resident, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Budget and Taxation Committee against the tax. Lawmakers ultimately amended the legislation and eliminated the proposed tax on advertising.

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:

2 24 25 Maryland HB 1089 Data Brokers Registry and Gross Income Tax
The bill’s broad definition of “data broker” threatens to capture nearly every entity that does business in Maryland . . . No other state has imposed this type of tax on data. The proposed tax would severely hamper businesses’ ability to create jobs and control prices for their services. Read the full letter.

2 25 25 Connecticut SB 1356 An Act Concerning Data Privacy, Online Monitoring, Social Media and Data Brokers
SB 1356 contains provisions that would make Connecticut’s privacy law out-of-step with privacy laws in other states, thereby adding to the increasingly complex privacy landscape for both businesses and consumers across the country. Read the full letter.

2 28 25 Montana SB 297 to Generally Revise Privacy Laws
Instead of proceeding with amendments to the Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (“MTCDPA”) that would diverge from the approach to privacy across several states, we ask the Committee to harmonize its approach to consumer data protections with other state privacy laws. Read the full letter.

2 28 25 Virginia SB 754 Consumer Protection Act
SB 754 is likely to have unintended and undesirable consequences for residents of the Commonwealth, in particular for new parents and other families. Read the full letter.

2 28 25 Arizona HB 2861 Social Media Protections; Minors
HB 2861 raises significant First Amendment concerns for Arizona minors and businesses alike . . . The bill would also have negative effects on Arizona minors by limiting the content and information available to them. Read the full letter.

3 3 25 New Mexico HB 430 Health Data Privacy Act
HB 430’s terms, coupled with its overly broad definition of “regulated health information,” could unintentionally impede New Mexicans from receiving useful and relevant information about products and services they may desire. Read the full letter.

3 3 25 Maryland SB 904 Data Brokers – Registry and Gross Income Tax
SB 904 would create new registration requirements and impose taxes on companies that drive employment and economic output for the state. Read the full letter.

3 4 25 South Carolina H 3431 Social Media Regulation
H 3431 raises significant First Amendment concerns for South Carolina minors and businesses alike . . . . The bill would also have negative effects on South Carolina minors by limiting the content and information available to them. Read the full letter.

3 10 25 California AB 566 Consumer Privacy Act
California consumers already have access to opt-out preference signals in the marketplace. In addition, the bill is ambiguous, would harm competition, and would delegate broad authority to the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) to issue regulations for standards that should instead be set by the legislature. Read the full letter.

3 10 25 California AB 446 Relating to Consumer Protection
AB 446 would flatly prohibit businesses from setting prices based on personally identifiable information. As drafted, the bill would prevent businesses from using personal information to offer coupons and discounts to Californians raising prices for families and price-conscious consumers. Read the full letter.

3 10 25 Illinois HB 2913 Data Broker Registration and Accessible Deletion Mechanism Act
Data brokers play an integral role in enabling consumers to access desired products, services, and online resources; fostering competitive markets; supporting businesses; and helping reduce prices for consumers. Enacting HB 2913 would create unnecessary requirements for data brokers that may harm small or mid-sized businesses that rely on data brokers to reach new customers. Read the full letter.

3 12 15 Vermont SB 71 Relating to Consumer Data Privacy and Online Surveillance
The bill 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.

3 17 25 Arkansas SB 258 Digital Responsibility, Safety, and Trust Act
The bill 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.

3 17 25 Oregon HB 3899 Relating to Requirements that Apply to Persons that Process Consumer Personal Data
HB 3899 would needlessly remove Oregonians’ ability to make choices about businesses’ data processing practices and only add to the increasingly complex privacy landscape for both businesses and consumers across the country. Read the full letter.

3 18 25 Pennsylvania HB 78 Protecting Consumer Information and Privacy
The bill would require the Pennsylvania Attorney General to issue regulations to implement its terms, thereby creating the likelihood for Pennsylvania’s privacy law to become out-of-step with privacy laws in other states. The bill’s rulemaking directive should be removed so Pennsylvania can remain in harmony with approximately 20 other states that have passed privacy legislation to date. Read the full letter.

3 20 25 Illinois HB 3041 Data Privacy and Protection Act
The bill 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. We ask you to harmonize HB 3041 with other state privacy laws. Read the full letter.

3 24 25 Illinois HB 3494 Protect Health Data Privacy Act
HB 3494’s terms, coupled with its overly broad definition of “health data,” could unintentionally impede Illinoisans from receiving useful and relevant information about products and services they may desire. Read the full letter.

3 24 25 Illinois HB 3712 Privacy Protections for Location Information Derived from Electronic Devices Act
Illinois should focus its efforts on harmonizing HB 3712 with the approach to location information taken in a majority of other states. A patchwork of differing privacy standards across the states creates significant costs for businesses and consumers alike. Efforts to harmonize state privacy legislation with existing privacy laws are critical to minimizing costs of compliance and fostering similar privacy rights for consumers no matter where they live. Read the full letter.

3 25 25 Illinois SB 2273 Protect Health Data Privacy Act
If enacted, the bill would hinder individuals in Illinois from accessing services and burden the operation of many businesses in the state. Read the full letter.

3 25 25 Illinois SB 2121 Privacy Protections for Location Information Derived from Electronic Devices Act
This bill’s terms veer from the well-established approach to location data present in other state privacy laws, further complicating the increasingly complex privacy landscape for both businesses and consumers across the country. Read the full letter.

3 25 25 California AB 1355 Location Privacy
AB 1355 is inconsistent with requirements in the California Consumer Privacy Act as well as other state privacy laws. Furthermore, AB 1355 would unreasonably limit the collection, use, and transfer of “location information” in ways that would inhibit Californians from receiving beneficial and even critical messaging and services. Read the full letter.

3 27 25 Illinois SB 2255 The Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination Act
SB 2255 would significantly restrict businesses from setting prices based on the broadly defined terms of “behaviors” and “personal characteristics” of individuals, thereby chilling the provision of discounts and loyalty programs to Illinoisans. In addition, SB 2255 would stifle innovation, increase costs for consumers, and fail to enhance consumer protections in a meaningful way. Read the full letter.

3 31 25 California AB 446 Surveillance Pricing
AB 446 would significantly restrict businesses from setting prices based on personally identifiable information, thereby chilling the provision of discounts and loyalty programs to Californians. Read the full letter.