Establishes the NY digital choice act requiring social media companies to provide covered users with a copy of the covered user's social graph at the request of the covered user; defines terms; provides requirements for the interoperability of covered users' data; grants the attorney general the authority to promulgate rules and regulations and enforce such provisions.
S08850, the NY Digital Choice Act, would create a new article in the General Business Law governing social media data portability and interoperability. It requires social media companies to give covered users a copy of their “social graph” within five business days of request, in a usable format that can be transferred to another platform or third party. The bill also requires platforms to provide a prominent method for users to request and consent to data sharing, and it allows users to delete their social graph data and private-designated data upon request.
The bill goes beyond simple data export by requiring social media companies to implement transparent, third-party-accessible interoperability interfaces and to use open protocols where feasible. It sets standards for continuous, real-time data sharing, allows reasonable and non-discriminatory fees above certain request thresholds, and requires documentation describing access to the interface. At the same time, it limits the scope of required disclosure by excluding internal inferences, analyses, proprietary algorithms, ranking systems, and certain proprietary-format data. It also gives secondary users an opt-out right for transfer of their public data and preserves privacy protections for private messages and other private-designated content.
If enacted, the bill would amend state law to impose new obligations on social media companies operating in New York and would expand the Attorney General’s authority to issue rules, enforce the statute through injunctions, and seek civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. The law would take effect July 1, 2027, with immediate authorization for necessary implementing regulations. In practical terms, the bill would create a state-level framework for user-controlled data portability and platform interoperability in the social media market.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript, vote tally, or formal opposition, so there is little direct evidence of legislative sentiment from the process history. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-choice and digital-rights bill, emphasizing user control, competition, and portability. Because there are no votes or hearing remarks provided, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as procedurally neutral and policy-driven rather than clearly contested in the available record.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the operational burden on social media companies, the technical feasibility of real-time interoperability, and the privacy/security risks associated with cross-platform data sharing. The bill attempts to address those concerns by excluding proprietary algorithms and internal analytics, requiring consent, allowing opt-outs for secondary users, and creating a safe harbor for temporary service interruptions when companies act in good faith. Those safeguards suggest the bill seeks a balance between consumer data rights and platform integrity, but the extent of that balance would likely be the central issue for stakeholders.
The bill would add a new Article 48 to the General Business Law, creating statutory duties for social media companies to provide data portability, interoperability, and deletion rights for covered users’ social graph data. It would also authorize the Attorney General to promulgate implementing regulations, bring enforcement actions, obtain injunctions, and seek civil penalties, thereby creating a new state enforcement regime for digital platform data practices.
No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no direct record of debate, support, or opposition. The bill’s framing suggests a generally pro-consumer, pro-competition sentiment focused on user control over digital data, but the available record does not show whether lawmakers or stakeholders were divided. Procedurally, the bill was introduced, amended, and recommitted, which indicates active legislative consideration rather than final consensus.
Likely areas of contention include whether social media companies can technically and economically support continuous, real-time interoperability, whether mandated open protocols could expose platforms to security or privacy risks, and whether the bill could force disclosure of sensitive data or create compliance costs. The bill addresses these concerns by excluding proprietary algorithms and internal inferences, limiting access to user-consented data, allowing opt-outs for secondary users, and providing a safe harbor for temporary interruptions, suggesting those were anticipated pressure points for industry and privacy advocates.