Minnesota House Bill HF4456

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/26
• Refer: 3/18/26

Caption

Data brokers required to register with the attorney general, account established, enforcement and civil penalties provided, and money appropriated.

Summary

HF4456 creates a new Minnesota data broker registry within chapter 325M of the consumer data privacy laws. The bill defines “data broker” broadly as a person that knowingly sells consumers’ personal data to third parties without a direct relationship, including some entities that do have a direct relationship but sell data they did not directly collect from the consumer. It then prohibits data brokers from collecting or selling personal data unless they have a current registration approved by the attorney general. To register, a data broker must pay a fee set by the attorney general and provide identifying and contact information, a website link explaining how consumers can exercise their rights, and any other information the attorney general deems relevant. The attorney general must approve compliant registrations, publish registered brokers’ information on a public website, and collect fees into a new special revenue fund account that is appropriated back to the office to cover administration and enforcement costs. The bill also applies existing consumer privacy law requirements to brokers that are also controllers or processors under Minnesota’s data privacy statutes, and it takes effect July 31, 2027.

Impact

The bill would add a new regulatory layer to Minnesota’s consumer privacy framework by requiring data brokers to register with the attorney general before collecting or selling personal data. It creates a public registry, establishes a dedicated account in the special revenue fund for registration fees, and authorizes the attorney general to enforce the requirement through civil actions and existing penalty provisions. The measure would affect data brokers operating in Minnesota, as well as any businesses that fit the bill’s definition through indirect data sales, while also tying compliance to the state’s existing data privacy rights and obligations in chapter 325M.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to reflect a consumer-protection approach aimed at increasing transparency and oversight of data brokers rather than changing consumer rights directly. The absence of recorded votes or hearing discussion means overall sentiment cannot be measured from the supplied context.

Contention

The main likely points of contention are the breadth of the definition of “data broker,” the compliance burden on businesses that must register and pay fees, and the attorney general’s discretion to set the fee amount and require additional registration information. Privacy advocates would likely support the public registry and enforcement tools, while industry stakeholders may object to the registration mandate, public disclosure of business information, and the possibility that the definition captures companies with some direct consumer relationship. Because no transcript is provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill text rather than documented debate.