establishing the digital choice act.
HB 1589 establishes the “Digital Choice Act,” creating a new subdivision in the state consumer protection law governing social media companies. The bill gives state residents who use social media the right to delete personal data held by a platform and to obtain a portable copy of their personal data in a usable format. It also requires social media companies to build transparent interoperability interfaces so users can share parts of their social graph across different platforms, using open protocols and with user consent.
The bill defines key terms such as “open protocol,” “personal data,” “social graph,” “social media company,” and “social media service,” while excluding email, cloud storage, and document collaboration tools from coverage. It also limits what must be shared: companies are not required to disclose internal inferences, proprietary algorithms, ranking systems, trade secrets, or certain proprietary-format data. Enforcement is assigned exclusively to the attorney general, and violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts or unfair methods of competition under existing consumer protection law. The attorney general may also adopt rules identifying acceptable open protocols, and companies using those protocols receive a rebuttable presumption of compliance with reasonable, non-discriminatory access terms.
This bill would amend RSA 358-A by adding a new “Digital Choice” subdivision that imposes new data portability, deletion, and interoperability obligations on social media companies operating in New Hampshire. It would expand the attorney general’s enforcement authority under the consumer protection statute, but it would not create a private right of action. The bill also authorizes rulemaking to identify qualifying open protocols and could affect how social media platforms design data-sharing systems, consent tools, and security practices for New Hampshire users. The fiscal note anticipates no revenue impact but an indeterminable increase in state expenditures, potentially requiring additional Department of Justice staffing and technology expertise.
The bill appears to be framed positively by its sponsors as a consumer-rights and competition measure, emphasizing user control over personal data and the ability to move social connections between platforms. The legislative findings reflect a strong policy preference for data portability and interoperability, suggesting support for reducing platform lock-in. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal opposition or amendment debate in the available materials.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope and technical feasibility of mandatory interoperability, the burden on social media companies to maintain open protocols and real-time data sharing, and the extent to which the state should regulate platform design and data architecture. The bill’s limits on access to trade secrets, proprietary algorithms, and derived data appear intended to address industry concerns, but companies may still object to compliance costs, security risks, and the attorney general’s authority to define acceptable protocols. The fiscal note also flags state resource concerns, noting that enforcement could require at least one additional attorney and a technologist in the Department of Justice.