Web Privacy Bill, to Replace Rules Trump Repealed, Dies in California Legislature
A California bill that would have restricted the ability of internet service providers to collect and sell consumer information without permission died early Saturday amid a strong lobbying push from telecommunications and tech companies to stop the privacy measure.
September 16, 2017 at 10:34 AM
7 minute read
A California bill that would have restricted the ability of internet service providers to collect and sell consumer information without permission died early Saturday amid a strong lobbying push from telecommunications and tech companies to stop the privacy measure.
The legislation, AB 375, was nearly identical to the privacy rules the Federal Communications Commission adopted in 2016 but later were repealed by the Trump administration. Privacy and consumer groups had hoped approval of the legislation in California would pave the way for at least 20 other states that are considering similar rules.
But the bill never came up for a vote on the Senate floor, with leaders offering no explanation.
“Congrats to Google, Facebook, Comcast, and AT&T's lobbyists on denying a vote on AB 375 to prevent Californians from regaining their privacy,” Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tweeted early Saturday. “This fight will not be going away,” Falcon wrote.
AB 375 would have required broadband service providers to obtain subscriber consent before using or selling data that identified the sites they visited or the apps they downloaded. It also would have prohibited companies from offering a discount to customers who consented or charging a surcharge to those who did not.
The bill earlier survived three committee votes this summer. But it became bottled up in the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by house leader Kevin de Leon, for almost two months. AT&T, Verizon, Google and numerous business trade groups—all major legislative donors with a large lobbying corps in Sacramento—complained the bill's provisions were unworkable.
AB 375 was released to the Senate floor Friday but house leaders never called it for a vote.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, could pursue similar legislation when lawmakers return to work in January.
“It is extremely disappointing that the California legislature failed to restore broadband privacy rights for residents in this state in response to the Trump Administration and Congressional efforts to roll back consumer protection,” Falcon said in a blog post Saturday. “Californians will continue to be denied the legal right to say no to their cable or telephone company using their personal data for enhancing already high profits.”
Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman, in April praised President Trump's repeal of the Obama-era privacy rules that the California bill would have mirrored.
“President Trump and Congress have appropriately invalidated one part of the Obama-era plan for regulating the Internet,” said Pai, a former Jenner & Block partner and, earlier, an in-house lawyer at Verizon Communications Inc. “Those flawed privacy rules, which never went into effect, were designed to benefit one group of favored companies, not online consumers.”
Pai said then the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission would work together “to restore the FTC's authority to police Internet service providers' privacy practices.”
Related Articles:
|A California bill that would have restricted the ability of internet service providers to collect and sell consumer information without permission died early Saturday amid a strong lobbying push from telecommunications and tech companies to stop the privacy measure.
The legislation, AB 375, was nearly identical to the privacy rules the Federal Communications Commission adopted in 2016 but later were repealed by the Trump administration. Privacy and consumer groups had hoped approval of the legislation in California would pave the way for at least 20 other states that are considering similar rules.
But the bill never came up for a vote on the Senate floor, with leaders offering no explanation.
“Congrats to
AB 375 would have required broadband service providers to obtain subscriber consent before using or selling data that identified the sites they visited or the apps they downloaded. It also would have prohibited companies from offering a discount to customers who consented or charging a surcharge to those who did not.
The bill earlier survived three committee votes this summer. But it became bottled up in the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by house leader Kevin
AB 375 was released to the Senate floor Friday but house leaders never called it for a vote.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, could pursue similar legislation when lawmakers return to work in January.
“It is extremely disappointing that the California legislature failed to restore broadband privacy rights for residents in this state in response to the Trump Administration and Congressional efforts to roll back consumer protection,” Falcon said in a blog post Saturday. “Californians will continue to be denied the legal right to say no to their cable or telephone company using their personal data for enhancing already high profits.”
Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman, in April praised President Trump's repeal of the Obama-era privacy rules that the California bill would have mirrored.
“President Trump and Congress have appropriately invalidated one part of the Obama-era plan for regulating the Internet,” said Pai, a former
Pai said then the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission would work together “to restore the FTC's authority to police Internet service providers' privacy practices.”
Related Articles:
|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 AllAmazon's Audible Hit With Privacy Class Action Over Use of Tracking Pixels
SAG-AFTRA Union Health Plan Slammed With Data Breach Class Actions in Wake of Phishing Attack
Pre/Dicta Expands Litigation Analytics Platform to California, Its First Venture Into State Courts
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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