HB1624, the Location Information Protection Act, would create a new statewide privacy framework governing the collection, processing, retention, disclosure, and sale of individuals’ location information in Pennsylvania. The bill generally prohibits covered entities and their service providers from collecting or processing location information unless they have a permissible purpose, provide a reasonably understandable location privacy policy, and obtain the individual’s consent. It defines location information broadly to include precise geolocation data such as GPS coordinates, cell-site location information, and certain IP addresses, while carving out limited exceptions for compliance with law and emergency response.
The bill also imposes restrictions after consent is obtained. Covered entities and service providers could not collect more precise data than necessary, retain it longer than necessary, sell or lease it, or disclose it to third parties except as needed for the permitted purpose or with consent. Consent would expire after one year, when the purpose is satisfied, or when revoked, and the entity would have to destroy the data upon expiration. The bill further requires public-facing privacy policies, advance notice of policy changes, and separate consent for multiple permissible purposes. It also bars government entities from monetizing location information and limits disclosure to government agencies to situations involving a warrant, certain emergency circumstances, or other lawful mandates.
In terms of legal impact, the bill would add a new layer of consumer privacy regulation in Pennsylvania and amend enforcement exposure under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts. It gives the Attorney General authority to enforce the act and creates a private right of action for individuals, with venue limited to the county where the person resides or was located at the time of the violation. Prevailing plaintiffs could recover actual damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs. The bill also voids contractual waivers of rights under the act and authorizes the Attorney General to promulgate implementing regulations.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship is strongly supportive of privacy protections, with the measure framed as a consumer safeguard against unauthorized tracking and monetization of sensitive location data. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of the consent requirement, the breadth of the definition of location information, and the operational burden on businesses that rely on geolocation for app functionality, advertising, analytics, or service delivery. The bill’s private right of action, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney-fee provisions may also be controversial because they increase litigation risk. Another notable issue is the law-enforcement disclosure section, which allows emergency access in limited circumstances but expressly excludes certain reproductive-health-related searches from that emergency exception, signaling a policy choice that could draw debate.
The bill would create a new Pennsylvania statutory regime governing location data and would affect businesses, app developers, data brokers, advertisers, and other entities that collect or process geolocation information. It would require privacy notices, consent management, data minimization, retention limits, deletion practices, and restrictions on disclosure and monetization, while also giving the Attorney General and private individuals enforcement tools under consumer-protection law.
The available record suggests a pro-privacy, consumer-protection orientation, with the bill introduced by a group of sponsors and no recorded opposition or vote history in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes, the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the text itself indicates a strong policy preference for limiting location tracking and commercial use of geolocation data.
Likely areas of dispute include whether the consent standard is too strict for common digital services, whether the definition of location information is too expansive, and whether the bill’s damages and private enforcement provisions could invite substantial litigation. Businesses may object to the limits on retention, disclosure, and monetization, while privacy advocates are likely to support those same restrictions. The law-enforcement access rules, especially the carve-out tied to reproductive-health-related searches, may also be a focal point of debate.