Congress' Tech Gap Isn't the Only Hurdle to a National Data Privacy Law
Congress' tech savvy or lack thereof isn't the pressing issue stopping a national data privacy law in the U.S., data privacy observers say. Instead, lawmakers are taking a methodical approach to a bill that would reshape private industry.
September 27, 2019 at 10:30 AM
4 minute read
As the nation's first substantive data privacy law is set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, in California, it may take a while for a similar law to be enacted country-wide.
U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Washington, and sponsor of the Information Transparency and Personal Data Control Act, said it's unlikely Congress will take action on a federal data privacy law this year, according to MeriTalk.
"It's not a partisan issue, but I do think folks are wary of some of these technology issues in terms of not understanding them well," DelBene said at a Forum Global Data Privacy conference.
However, DelBene's sentiments aren't shared by all. Data privacy lawyers said a tech gap isn't preventing Congress from implementing a national data privacy law. Instead, they noted the broad impact of a potential law requires lawmakers to fully consider what to include in a bill.
Is the technology gap causing a slow down? "I think it's a minor factor when you look at everything else members have to consider if they are passing a large data protection law that preempts state law," said Clay Heil, the D.C.-based co-founder and principal of Ice Miller Strategies. "There's a lot of concerns about what it would look like, who would be included and that would take Congress a while to figure out and find a consensus on."
Still, some Democratic presidential candidates and members of Congress have called for reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment, which from 1972 to 1995 provided Congress with information regarding new and evolving technologies and their impact in order to strengthen lawmakers' tech understanding.
Jessica Lee, co-chair of Loeb & Loeb's privacy, security and data innovations, said restoring an objective, nonpartisan agency to explain technology would be useful.
"I think that's a great idea, to whatever extent it is possible in a neutral, bias-free environment," she said.
Lee noted because a federal data privacy law would have significant impact on certain industries, it requires significant thought about potential consequences and should be flexible to new technology.
Still, no one expects lawmakers to become tech experts before they can draft and pass a data privacy bill.
"It's not because the Congress is ignorant; it is very complex. But I also don't think you necessarily need to understand the technology to put down a framework for data privacy," said Cynthia Cole, special counsel at Baker Botts.
To Heil, finalizing a bill comes down to striking a bipartisan agreement about a legislation that impacts all businesses, which could take time.
"I think it gets back to what do you include in a bill. Do you make it a [General Data Protection Regulation] framework? Do you copy what California has done? Who should be included in a data protection law, what type of industries and then do you include a private right of action? All of those are major issues depending on what choices you make that has effects on private business."
But although it's unlikely Congress will move forward on a national data law this year, Heil agrees with Representative DelBene that a data privacy law isn't a partisan issue, and he said it wouldn't be too hot for lawmakers to debate during 2020, a presidential election year.
"I don't see it as something that can't be done in an election year," he said. "But if there's an impeachment hearing in the House that will certainly slow down all legislation."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250