HB1089 creates a new regulatory and tax framework for data brokers in Maryland. It establishes a Privacy Protection and Enforcement Unit within the Office of the Attorney General’s Division of Consumer Protection, directs that unit to enforce Maryland’s age-appropriate design and online privacy laws, and authorizes it to educate consumers and coordinate with other agencies on privacy, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and unlawful online conduct. The bill also creates a data broker registry administered by the Comptroller, requiring covered data brokers to register annually and disclose information about their business, their use of precise geolocation and consumer health data, and the opt-out rights available to residents.
The bill imposes a 6% gross income tax on a data broker’s apportioned income from data brokering, with detailed sourcing rules for attributing income to Maryland. It also sets filing, payment, recordkeeping, assessment, refund, and penalty provisions specific to the new tax, including misdemeanor and perjury penalties for willful nonfiling or false returns. Revenue from the tax is earmarked first for administration, then for the new privacy enforcement unit, AI-related information technology projects, Maryland Public Television digital literacy support, and the Coordinated Community Supports Partnership Fund, with the remainder going to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund.
The bill would amend multiple sections of the Commercial Law, Tax-General, Education, and State Finance and Procurement articles to add the new tax, define key terms such as data broker, data brokering, brokered personal data, biometric information, and de-identified data, and integrate the new tax into existing Comptroller administration and tax enforcement provisions. It also updates revenue distribution provisions tied to existing special funds and adds the data broker tax to the list of taxes subject to assessment and refund procedures.
Overall sentiment from the available context appears limited but generally policy-driven and supportive of stronger privacy protections and consumer oversight, since the bill is framed as a consumer protection measure and was assigned to committees handling economic and fiscal matters. No vote record or committee transcript is available here, so there is no documented opposition or support from floor or committee debate in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are the creation of a new tax on data brokers, the compliance burden of annual registration and disclosures, and the scope of the Attorney General’s enforcement authority over technology, AI, and digital privacy issues. Businesses engaged in data brokerage, as well as entities near the bill’s exemptions and sourcing rules, would likely be most affected, while supporters would likely emphasize privacy rights, transparency, and dedicated funding for enforcement and digital literacy.
HB1089 would add a new Title 7.3 to the Tax-General Article creating a data broker registry and a 6% gross income tax on covered data brokers, while also amending enforcement, assessment, refund, and penalty provisions to incorporate that new tax. It would further create a new Privacy Protection and Enforcement Unit in the Attorney General’s Division of Consumer Protection and direct revenue from the tax into several special funds and programs, including privacy enforcement, AI-related IT projects, digital literacy, community supports, and the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund. The bill also expands related definitions and reporting obligations in the Commercial Law and Tax-General Articles, affecting data brokers, the Comptroller, the Attorney General, and designated education and technology funds.
The bill’s framing suggests a generally favorable policy sentiment toward consumer privacy, online safety, and regulation of data brokers. The available context does not include recorded votes or hearing testimony, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to appeal to privacy advocates and public-interest supporters, while likely drawing scrutiny from the data brokerage and broader technology sectors because of the new tax and compliance requirements.
Likely points of contention include whether Maryland should impose a 6% gross income tax on data brokers, how broadly the term “data broker” and related data categories are defined, and whether the registry and disclosure requirements are too burdensome or intrusive for covered businesses. Another likely issue is the bill’s revenue allocation, which dedicates proceeds to multiple special funds rather than general operations, and the expansion of state enforcement authority over AI, cybersecurity, and digital privacy. Businesses that collect, sell, or license personal data would likely oppose the tax and reporting obligations, while privacy and consumer protection advocates would likely support the regulatory and enforcement provisions.