Student Online Personal Information Protection:
HB 1223 would amend Florida’s student online personal information protection law to require written parental or guardian consent before an operator or interactive computer service may collect or share a student’s covered information. The bill applies to data practices connected to K-12 schools and school districts, and it would require contracts or written arrangements with vendors to include a prominent statement explaining that Florida is a parental-consent state and that collection or dissemination of student information must be expressly disclosed and approved by a parent or guardian.
The bill also requires school districts to publish relevant portions of their contracts, agreements, or written arrangements with operators or interactive computer services on their websites in a way that is easy for parents, guardians, and the public to find and understand. In addition, the Department of Education would have to maintain a public website list of operators or interactive computer services that violate the law, and violators could be barred from contracting with school districts or K-12 schools for five years. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 1223 would strengthen and expand Florida’s existing student data privacy framework in section 1006.1494, Florida Statutes, by adding an explicit written-consent requirement for collection and sharing of covered student information. It would also impose new transparency obligations on school districts and new compliance consequences for vendors, including public disclosure requirements and a five-year contracting prohibition for noncompliant operators or interactive computer services. The bill preserves other available legal remedies and authorizes the State Board of Education to adopt implementing rules.
The available context suggests the bill was generally framed as a parental-rights and student-privacy measure, with an emphasis on transparency, consent, and limiting third-party access to student data. There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, and the bill ultimately died in the Education Administration Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance despite its stated privacy protections.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s strict written-consent requirement, the broad public posting of contract terms, and the five-year ban on future contracts for vendors that fail to comply. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to protect children’s privacy and ensure parental control, while school districts, vendors, or technology providers could view them as burdensome, potentially disruptive to educational technology services, and punitive in their enforcement approach. Because no transcripts are provided, the specific arguments of individual stakeholders are not available.