Adopt the Data Elimination and Limiting Extensive Tracking and Exchange Act
LB602 would create the “Data Elimination and Limiting Extensive Tracking and Exchange Act,” or “Delete Act,” and place new obligations on data brokers that conduct business in Nebraska. The bill defines data brokers broadly and requires them to register annually with the Secretary of State, pay a fee, and disclose information about their business, data practices, security measures, breach history, and whether they collect precise geolocation data or data about children. It also requires public posting of registration information and authorizes the Secretary of State to establish an accessible deletion mechanism for consumers.
A central feature of the bill is a consumer deletion system. It would allow a consumer, through a single verified request, to direct data brokers to delete personal data, opt out of further processing, and exclude specific brokers from a request. Data brokers would be required to process deletion requests on a recurring basis, stop selling new personal data after a deletion request unless the consumer changes their decision, and direct service providers and contractors to delete the consumer’s data as well. The bill also imposes audit requirements, enforcement authority for the Attorney General, rulemaking authority for the Secretary of State, and civil penalties for noncompliance.
LB602 would significantly expand state regulation of data brokers and consumer privacy practices in Nebraska by creating a new statutory framework for registration, disclosure, deletion requests, security standards, and enforcement. It would amend the Nebraska Revised Statutes to add the Delete Act and also revise the state’s deceptive trade practices law so that violations of the new data broker requirements are treated as deceptive trade practices. The bill would affect data brokers, consumers, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, while also imposing compliance, audit, and reporting duties on covered businesses and their vendors.
The bill appears to have been framed as a consumer privacy and data protection measure, with its structure emphasizing broad deletion rights, transparency, and security obligations. However, the available record shows no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately indefinitely postponed, which suggests it did not advance and may have faced sufficient opposition or lack of support to stop further consideration. Because no discussion excerpts are provided, the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s fate rather than from direct debate.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope and cost of compliance for data brokers, including annual registration, public disclosures, security-program requirements, recurring deletion processing, independent audits, and civil penalties. The bill also appears to raise questions about administrative burden for the Secretary of State in operating the deletion mechanism and enforcing compliance, as well as practical issues around verifying consumer requests, handling legally required retention, and defining which entities qualify as data brokers or are exempt. The lack of recorded discussion makes it impossible to identify specific opponents or supporters, but the breadth of the obligations suggests that industry compliance concerns and implementation challenges would have been the most likely sources of resistance.