Video & Transcript Research : 'consumer information'

Page 68 of 500
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives Mar 31st, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

Bills: HR84, HR85, HR86, HR87, HR88, HR89, HR90, HCR42, HCR43, HB1087, HB1088, HB1089, HB1090, HB1091, HB1092, HB1093, HB1094, HB1095, HB1096, HB1097, HB1098, HB1099, HB1100, HB1101, HB1102, HB1103, HB1104, HB1105, HB1106, HB1107, HB1108, HB1109, HB1110, HB1111, HB1112, HB1113, HB1114, HB1115, HB1116, HB1117, HB1118, HB1119, HB1120, HB1121, HB1122, HB1123, HB1124, HB1125, HB1126, HB1127, HB1128, HB1129, HB1130, HB1131, HB1132, HB1133, HB1134, HB1135, HB1136, HB1137, HB1138, HB1139, HB1140, HB1141, HB1142, HB1143, HB1144, HB1145, HB1146, HB1147, HB1148, HB1149, HB1150, HB1151, HB1153, HB1154, HB1155, HB1156, HB1157, HB1158, HB1159, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1163, HB1164, HB1165, HB1166, HB1167, HB1169, HB1170, HB1171, HB1172, HB1173, HB1174, HB1175, HB1176, HB1177, HB1178, HB1179, HB1180, HB1181, HB1182, HB1183, HB1184, HB1185, HB1186, HB1187, HB1188, HB1189, HB1190, HB1192, HB1193, HB1194, HB1195, HB1196, HB1197, HB1198, HB1199, HB1200, HB1201, HB1202, HB1203, HB1204, HB1205, HB1206, HB1207, HB1208, HB1209, HB1210, HB1211, HB1212, HB1213, HB1214, HB1215, HB1216, HB1217, HB1218, HB1219, HB1220, HB1221, HB1222, HB1223, HB1224, HB1225, HB1226, HB1227, HB1228, HB1229, HB1230, HB1231, HR73, HR74, HR75, HR77, HR78, HR79, HR80, HR81, HR83, HCR36, HCR37, HCR38, HCR39, HCR40, HCR41, HB368, HB433, HB1017, HB1018, HB1019, HB1020, HB1021, HB1022, HB1023, HB1024, HB1025, HB1026, HB1027, HB1028, HB1029, HB1030, HB1031, HB1032, HB1033, HB1034, HB1035, HB1036, HB1037, HB1038, HB1039, HB1040, HB1041, HB1042, HB1043, HB1044, HB1045, HB1046, HB1047, HB1048, HB1049, HB1050, HB1051, HB1052, HB1053, HB1054, HB1055, HB1056, HB1057, HB1058, HB1059, HB1060, HB1061, HB1062, HB1063, HB1064, HB1065, HB1066, HB1067, HB1068, HB1069, HB1070, HB1071, HB1072, HB1073, HB1074, HB1075, HB1076, HB1077, HB1078, HB1079, HB1080, HB1081, HB1082, HB1083, HB1084, SB111, SB122, SB195, SB221, SB404, HR1, HCR6, HCR19, HB27, HB81, HB134, HB154, HB163, HB170, HB194, HB214, HB217, HB220, HB254, HB259, HB290, HB308, HB311, HB360, HB382, HB401, HB410, HB417, HB463, HB514, HB575, HB592, HB718, HB723, HB750, HB755, HB776, HB812, HB830, HB838, HB844, HB882, HB885, HB888, HB950, HB961, HB966, HB980, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HB58, HB69, HB93, HB166, HB199, HB201, HB202, HB218, HB223, HB224, HB231, HB235, HB246, HB338, HB349, HB352, HB379, HB405, HB429, HB535, HB547, HB577, HB588, HB626, HB636, HB652, HB653, HB669, HB688, HB691, HB721, HB738, HB806, HB851, HB857, HB861, HB889, HB904, HB907, HB908, HB929, HB1009, HB13, HB23, HB25, HB32, HB41, HB90, HB120, HB121, HB122, HB127, HB138, HB139, HB141, HB179, HB187, HB213, HB247, HB286, HB332, HB344, HB357
MA

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm

Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity

Transcript Highlights:
  • It's up to the consumer to decide whether they want that information to be collected at all in the first
  • This legislation aims to inform and empower consumers about the specific nature of the data that the
  • , and what we've pointed out is that if a consumer deletes that type of information once the service
  • If the information is deleted by a consumer, car owner, it would make it difficult for the manufacturer
  • By addressing features like dark patterns, they allow consumers to make informed choices.
Keywords: 995, all
Summary: The committee hearing focused on a package of Massachusetts privacy and technology bills, especially measures to ban the sale of location data, establish a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and regulate biometric recognition and surveillance pricing. Chairs and sponsors argued that self-regulation has failed, that data brokers and large tech companies routinely collect and monetize sensitive information, and that state action is needed because federal protections are weak or absent. Several speakers tied the bills to reproductive health, gender-affirming care, domestic violence, children’s data, and other sensitive uses of location and biometric information. Supporters included legislators and advocates who backed H. 86/S. 197 (Location Shield), H. 78/S. 45/H. 104/S. 29 (comprehensive privacy bills), H. 99/S. 47 (surveillance pricing in grocery stores), and H. 36/S. 36 (biometric recognition accountability). They emphasized data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data, consumer rights to access, delete, and opt out, and in some cases a private right of action. Several witnesses said Massachusetts should lead or align with other states, while others argued that stronger protections are needed because data can be weaponized by stalkers, anti-abortion actors, abusive partners, insurers, or law enforcement. Industry and coalition witnesses urged the committee to favor a more standardized, interoperable framework modeled on laws already adopted in other states, warning that novel definitions, data-minimization rules, and private rights of action could create compliance burdens, confusion, and costs for businesses, including small businesses. They argued that entity-level exemptions for sectors already covered by federal laws like HIPAA or GLBA promote consistency, and that Attorney General enforcement is preferable to private lawsuits. Committee members questioned witnesses on patchwork concerns, the scope of exemptions, and whether the proposed bills would harm or help consumers and small businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; written testimony was noted as due later, and the committee continued taking testimony from multiple panels and virtual witnesses.
VT

Vermont 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Session - 2026-05-26 - 4:20PM

Vermont House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • available information means Publicly available information means information<00:12:05.120> that
  • Biometric data, information that is collated and combined to create a consumer profile that is made available
  • free or for a fee where the consumer has maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information
  • > on and information provided by consumer on and information provided by consumer on a<00:12:40.280
  • heightened risk of harm to consumers. heightened risk of harm to consumers.
Keywords: 926, house, all
Summary: The House first took up House Bill 955, relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system. The chamber suspended rules to consider the Senate proposal of amendment immediately, and the House Education Committee reported that while it appreciated the Senate’s work, differences remained on issues including the timing of class size minimums, possible tuition or fees under the foundation formula, school construction details, and merger committee groupings. The committee voted 11-0-0 to refuse concurrence and request a committee of conference. After a brief correction on the committee straw poll, the House voted to refuse concurrence in the Senate amendment and appointed Representatives Conlin, Kornheiser, and Quimby as the House conferees. The House then suspended rules to message its action to the Senate forthwith. The House next took up Senate Bill 71, the consumer data privacy and online surveillance bill. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee recommended amendment, and the floor report described the bill as creating a comprehensive Vermont data privacy law effective January 1, 2028. The report outlined consumer rights to know, access, correct, delete, and port personal data, and to opt out of targeted advertising and sale of data; duties for controllers and processors; limits on sensitive data use; special protections for minors and health-related geofencing; Attorney General enforcement; and an 18-month cure period. The committee heard extensive testimony from a broad range of advocates, industry representatives, privacy experts, and other stakeholders, and it reported the bill out favorably with amendment on a vote of 11-0-0 before the House recessed for dinner.
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Insurance Committee Jun 17th, 2026

Transcript Highlights:
  • Protecting consumer privacy is becoming more important in a digital world where information is often
  • Protecting consumer privacy is becoming more important in a digital world where information is often
  • It gives consumers the right to correct inaccurate information held by insurance providers.
  • Consumers have little visibility into how their information is being used, and current insurance laws
  • The consumer understands they're going to share that information for that purpose.
Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee heard several bills, with most of the discussion focused on insurance transparency, claims handling, privacy, and regulatory enforcement. SB 877 and SB 878 by Senator Pérez addressed post-disaster claims practices: SB 877 would require insurers to disclose original and revised loss estimates and related claim materials to policyholders, while SB 878 would add automatic interest penalties for delayed claim decisions or payments and require written identification of disputed items. Fire survivors, consumer groups, AARP, the Department of Insurance, and other advocates supported both bills, while insurer groups moved to neutral after amendments. Both bills were voted out on roll call and reported to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 1054 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand data sharing and reporting to improve workforce program evaluation and help counties verify work requirements for Medi-Cal and CalFresh using employer-reported hours worked. County officials, workforce advocates, and the Department of Insurance supported the measure, and no opposition was heard. The bill passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to the Committee on Labor and Employment. SB 1209 by Senator Allen, presented with Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, would give the commissioner stronger enforcement tools to require insurers to carry out corrective actions identified in market conduct examinations, including fines and hearings for noncompliance. The commissioner and author said the bill would close an enforcement gap and improve accountability; there was no opposition testimony, but the bill was left on call after the roll. The committee also heard SB 354 on insurance privacy, presented by Senator Padilla on behalf of Pro Tem Limón, which would modernize insurance privacy rules by expanding consumer rights over personal data, limiting sale and use of sensitive information, and increasing disclosure requirements. Supporters said the bill updates outdated 1980s-era rules, while insurers, agents, and business groups raised concerns about scope, compliance burdens, and small-business impacts. Members indicated the bill was still being negotiated and would return in a revised form in the Privacy Committee.
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee Jun 22nd, 2026

Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:
  • Right now, companies are using personally identifiable information, which is collected on a consumer,
  • That's using someone's personally identifiable information that has nothing to do with them having consumer
  • It simply prohibits the sale of personal information to be consistent with consumer preferences, but
  • It simply prohibits the sale of personal information to be consistent with consumer preferences, but
  • And one of those rights is consumers have control over how their personal information is used.
Keywords: 987, senate, all
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Insurance Committee Jun 17th, 2026

Insurance

Transcript Highlights:
  • Protecting consumer privacy is becoming more important in a digital world where information is often
  • It gives consumers the right to correct inaccurate information held by insurance providers.
  • Consumers have little visibility into how their information... ...statutes were written.
  • Consumers have little visibility into how their information is being used, and current insurance laws
  • The consumer understands they're going to share that information for that purpose.
Keywords: 988, house, all
SC

South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

Healthcare and Regulatory Subcommittee Jun 24th, 2026

Transcript Highlights:
  • Our consumer services will present in later sessions more detailed information about how we serve our
  • And we use all of that information to develop action plans to better serve our consumers.
  • Vocational evaluation helps consumers identify realistic vocational goals by combining information from
  • Information from therapy, assessments, vocational evaluation, and consumer input is combined, and that
  • consumer.
Keywords: 977, all
Summary: The committee met to receive a detailed financial operations presentation from the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency, with staff walking members through funding sources, budgeting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and grants management. Sabrina Walker explained VR’s blended funding structure, including federal grants, state appropriations, program income, and interagency contracts, and emphasized that state funds are essential to meeting the federal match and maintenance-of-effort requirements. Members asked repeatedly about transparency, audit controls, and the risk that state cuts could reduce federal drawdowns; staff responded that all reports reconcile back to the SCEIS accounting system, are subject to state audits and internal reviews, and that even modest state reductions could significantly reduce total available funding. The committee also discussed pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, with staff confirming services are offered through school districts, charters, and private schools, and that contracts are monitored for performance and compliance. The presentation then shifted to budgeting and internal controls. Walker described a zero-based departmental budgeting process, monthly monitoring reports, contingency reserves for unexpected expenses, and a formal annual cycle that culminates in board approval. Members asked about facilities tracking, culture, and how the agency maintains accountability; staff said facilities staff inspect buildings and equipment, supervisors justify line-item requests, and the process has become smoother over time as departments learned the system. Cynthia Johnson followed with an accounts receivable overview, describing invoicing, receipting, aging, customer verification, year-end reporting, and the use of cross-training, shared email inboxes, and spreadsheets as checks and balances. She also explained work training center billing, interdepartmental transfers, and the revolving fund used to issue consumer checks more quickly than standard vendor payments. Olivia Perez presented accounts payable operations, including invoice processing through SCEIS and OnBase, the three-way match, travel reimbursements, revolving fund checks, State Treasury Office interactions, and handling of reversals, rejections, and levy notices. She reported that AP processed 67,723 SCEIS payments, 13,670 case management system invoices, 3,379 travel reimbursements, and 15,693 revolving fund checks in fiscal year 2025, with only 70 payment rejections. The final portion of the meeting covered Grants and Funds Management, where Walker explained federal reporting, drawdowns, payroll allocation, asset tracking, lease and IT contract reviews, cost allocation, and closing packages. She noted upcoming system changes such as S/4HANA, Workiva, and SC Pro, but said the agency is receiving training and feedback opportunities. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the presentation portion beyond approval of the prior minutes and a brief recess.
MN

Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session

Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection - 02/20/25

Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:
  • I appreciate everyone coming for this informational hearing on changes at the national level on the Consumer
  • help consumers make more informed choices.
  • informed choices.
  • Commerce goes in and accesses that database to pull information to see where the Minnesota consumers
  • to say where are the pull information to say where are the Minnesota<00:09:23.399> consumers<
Keywords: 1187, senate, all
AR
Transcript Highlights:
  • “But you mentioned the consumer information that we could share with people.
  • We share information and we try to collaborate to see what we can send out to consumers to educate them
  • Do you see that as being a source of information for those persons that victimize these consumers?
  • Can your account be hacked online without any kind of information given by the consumer?
  • Can your account be hacked online without any kind of information given by the consumer?
Keywords: 1204, all
Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members hearing from bankers, the Attorney General’s office, the state bank and securities commissioner, the insurance department, AARP, and mortgage industry representatives. Witnesses described fraud as increasingly organized, technology-driven, and often transnational, with common schemes including spoofed bank calls and texts, fake websites and social media impersonations, business email compromise, gift card and wire scams, crypto kiosk fraud, check fraud, and mortgage/real estate fraud. Several witnesses emphasized that seniors are disproportionately targeted and that losses are often underreported because victims feel embarrassed or do not know where to report incidents. Testimony highlighted both state and national responses. Bankers and regulators pointed to Arkansas’s 2025 actions on crypto ATMs and elder-fraud education, including training for gift-card sellers and safe-harbor protections for banks under the Safe AR Act. The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division described its complaint process, a new financial fraud task force, and examples of recovered funds, including quick recoveries from Bitcoin kiosk scams and wire fraud cases. The American Bankers Association and others urged stronger accountability for telecoms and social media platforms, citing spoofed caller ID, impersonation ads, Section 230 issues, and the need for a national scam-prevention strategy or federal office. Artificial intelligence was identified as a major emerging risk because it can generate convincing scam emails, websites, and impersonation content at scale. Members asked about reporting procedures, whether banks reimburse fraud losses, how crypto affects recoverability, the safety of tap-to-pay versus chip use, and whether public online records contribute to fraud. Witnesses generally advised victims to report scams through the proper channels, avoid clicking links or responding to suspicious messages, and verify requests independently by contacting institutions directly. The committee also heard that banks and regulators are already sharing information and educating consumers, but that more legislative and cross-agency action may be needed. No formal vote or bill action was taken beyond approval of the November 3, 2025 minutes.
AR
Transcript Highlights:
  • Don't ever share any personal information, including your account information, debit card information
  • We share information, and we try to collaborate to see what we can send out to consumers to educate them
  • Do you see that as being a source of information for those persons that victimize these consumers?
  • Without any kind of information given by the consumer.
  • a consumer.
Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members and witnesses describing scams targeting seniors, small businesses, and working families. The committee first approved the November 3, 2025 minutes, then heard from the Arkansas Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, banks, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, the Arkansas Mortgage Bankers Association, the State Bank and Securities Department, the Insurance Department, and AARP. Witnesses described common schemes including spoofed bank calls and texts, government imposter scams, romance and investment scams, business email compromise, fake job postings, gift card scams, check fraud, wire fraud, reverse mortgage scams, identity theft, and insurance fraud. Several witnesses emphasized that cryptocurrency kiosks and crypto transfers make recovery difficult or impossible, and that artificial intelligence is making scams more convincing and scalable. Witnesses repeatedly stressed education, verification, and coordination among banks, law enforcement, regulators, and consumers. Bank and mortgage representatives urged consumers to slow down, independently verify wire instructions, avoid clicking unexpected links, use tap-to-pay rather than chip or swipe when possible, and never share account credentials or one-time codes. The Attorney General’s office said it investigates consumer complaints, mediates disputes, works with social media platforms to remove scam ads, and recently created a Financial Fraud Task Force with bankers and other stakeholders. The State Bank and Securities Commissioner highlighted the Safe AR Act, the state’s crypto kiosk framework, and fraud education efforts such as “fraud bingo,” while the Insurance Department described its law-enforcement role and a range of insurance-related fraud schemes it prosecutes. AARP said fraud is widespread and underreported, especially among older adults. Members asked about reporting scams, how losses are handled, whether tap is safer than chip, how crypto fraud works, whether Arkansas has model legislation to address telecom and social media impersonation, and how local law enforcement and state agencies coordinate investigations. Witnesses said banks generally absorb much of the financial loss under federal rules, while consumers bear the inconvenience and account changes. Several witnesses said Arkansas should consider additional legislation to hold telecom companies and social media platforms accountable for spoofed caller IDs and impersonation ads, and one witness said a federal Scam Act is moving in Congress. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approval of the minutes, but witnesses agreed to share consumer education materials and model legislation with committee staff.
AR
Transcript Highlights:
  • Don't ever share any personal information, including your account information, debit card information
  • Don't ever share any personal information, including your account information, debit card information
  • We share information and we try to collaborate to see what we can send out to consumers to educate them
  • Do you see that as being a source of information for those persons that victimize these consumers?
  • from a consumer.”
Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members hearing from bankers, regulators, law enforcement, AARP, and mortgage and insurance industry representatives. Witnesses described a wide range of scams, including spoofed bank calls and texts, fake websites and social media impersonation, romance and investment scams, business email compromise, gift card fraud, check fraud, wire fraud, reverse mortgage scams, and crypto kiosk schemes. Several speakers emphasized that fraud is increasingly organized, technology-driven, and amplified by artificial intelligence, and that seniors are disproportionately targeted and often suffer the largest losses. Testimony highlighted both prevention and recovery efforts. Bankers said institutions spend heavily on training, customer education, and fraud detection, but often cannot stop losses once customers have been convinced to authorize transfers. The Attorney General’s office described its Consumer Protection Division, a new Financial Fraud Task Force, and examples of recovering funds quickly from crypto kiosk and wire fraud cases. The State Bank Department and Securities Department said Arkansas’s 2025 crypto ATM legislation and related education requirements have helped, and they urged continued public education. The Insurance Department reported major insurance-fraud trends, including fake insurance cards, forged policies, premium-finance schemes, and staged auto accidents, and said it prosecutes these cases aggressively. Members asked about reporting scams, the security of tap payments, how fraud losses are tracked, the role of crypto kiosks, and whether Arkansas should pursue model legislation or stronger action against telecom and social media companies. Witnesses said tap payments are generally safer than chip or swipe, that crypto transfers are often unrecoverable, and that spoofed caller ID and impersonation ads remain major problems. Paul Benda of the American Bankers Association urged state and federal action against telecom and social media platforms and supported national scam legislation. No new bills were voted on at the meeting, but members approved the November 3, 2025 minutes and several witnesses offered to share model legislation, consumer education materials, and state-by-state fraud data with the committee.
NH
Transcript Highlights:
  • c> is consumers so consumer protection is consumers so consumer protection is really<00:30:18.000
  • can direct consumers to some sites that you can go to for additional information.
  • <01:09:29.199> has<01:09:29.440> no consumer the consumer often times has no consumer
  • Credit consumer credit okay Consumer Credit consumer credit okay Consumer Credit Division<01:41:
  • consumers.
Keywords: 928, house, all
Summary: The meeting began with introductory remarks for new and returning members of the House Commerce Committee, led by Chairman John Hunt. Members briefly introduced themselves and their backgrounds, and several noted the committee’s bipartisan, collegial tone. Hunt explained the committee’s structure and traditions, including the division into three subcommittees: banking and business, consumer protection, and liquor commission matters, with insurance now handled as a single area. He also reviewed basic hearing procedures, including decorum, questions for information only, and the committee’s practice of moving bills through subcommittees before full committee executive sessions. The committee then heard an overview from the New Hampshire Insurance Department, led by Commissioner DJ Bettencourt and staff. The department described its mission as promoting a safe and competitive insurance marketplace and emphasized consumer protection, market competition, and affordability. Officials outlined the department’s responsibilities, including licensing insurers, producers, adjusters, and TPAs; reviewing insurance forms; regulating companies and market conduct; overseeing financial solvency; and investigating insurance fraud. They also noted that the department is self-funded through assessments on insurers, collects premium taxes and fees for the state, and returned more than $2.7 million to companies in fiscal year 2024 due to underspending. The presentation also covered the broader regulatory framework for insurance, including the role of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in promoting uniform standards across states and territories. Officials said New Hampshire licenses about 1,200 insurance companies and roughly 245,000 producers and adjusters, and that the department’s financial examinations are part of an accreditation system used nationwide. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the session was primarily organizational and informational, with the insurance department presentation beginning the committee’s substantive work for the term.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • The current definition of sensitive personal information in the California Consumer Privacy Act allows
  • The CCPA is about giving consumers more control over their personal information that businesses collect
  • The CCPA provides the ability for a consumer to request the deletion of personal information, the right
  • publicly available, leading to consumers losing their rights over their information.
  • speed of light that oftentimes the consumer is completely unaware that this information is being out
Summary: The committee heard several AI- and consumer-protection-related bills, with extensive testimony from authors, supporters, and industry opponents. SB 53 by Senator Wiener would create transparency requirements for large AI developers, including disclosure of safety and security protocols, reporting of critical safety incidents, whistleblower protections, and the CalCompute public cloud. Supporters said it is a narrower, transparency-based follow-up to last year’s vetoed AI safety bill, while opponents argued it still relies too much on company size, could expose trade secrets, and should be narrowed further. The committee approved SB 53 on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations, with the roll held open for absent members. SB 766 by Senator Allen would codify the FTC’s Cars Rule and create a three-day cooling-off period for certain used-car purchases, along with stronger disclosure rules on pricing, add-ons, and government affiliation claims. Supporters said it would save consumers money and time and help buyers avoid bad deals, while dealer and industry groups said amendments addressed many of their concerns. Several former opponents moved to neutral, and the committee passed SB 766 unanimously as amended to Appropriations. SB 7 by Senator McNerney would regulate automated decision-making systems in employment by requiring notice, human review for discipline and termination, and limits on predictive behavior analysis. Labor and consumer advocates supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or overly automated workplace decisions, while employer and industry groups raised concerns about scope, notice burdens, and the predictive-analysis ban. The committee passed SB 7 to Appropriations on a 4-2 vote, with the roll held open. SB 833, also by Senator McNerney, would require human oversight of AI used in critical infrastructure, along with training and system assessments; it drew limited opposition focused on scope, and the committee passed it as amended to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote, also holding the roll open. Later, the committee took up SB 11, which would address AI-generated voice, image, and video cloning and deepfakes by clarifying likeness protections, requiring consumer warnings, and addressing misuse and evidence tampering. Supporters framed it as a targeted response to nonconsensual deepfakes, while industry groups said recent amendments improved the bill but still had concerns about penalties and warning language. The committee also heard SB 720, the Safer Streets Act, which would let cities opt into a revised red-light camera system that shifts from driver to owner liability, removes facial identification, makes violations civil rather than criminal, and directs revenue toward transportation safety projects; the author presented the bill, but the transcript ends before any final action on SB 720.
MA

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Senate Session (Full Formal with Calendar) Jun 21st, 2026 at 11:00 am

Massachusetts Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Like other states, this bill provides consumers Like other states, this bill provides consumers with
  • It also contains provisions regulating the profiling of consumers.
  • We're giving them a guarantee, the consumer right to know, gives control to consumers, and creates strong
  • We're giving them a guarantee the consumer right to know, gives control to consumers, and creates strong
  • The problem is that consumers do not read privacy policies.
Keywords: 995, all
Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, recognized several guests in the chamber, and adopted a resolution congratulating Coleman-Nee on election as National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. It also took up several local and personnel matters, including a sick leave bank for Emily Cullick and later Paul Stavarski, and local bills affecting the town of Weston and a Dorchester housing/library procurement exemption; those measures were advanced to third reading or engrossment as appropriate. The chamber also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer several House petitions to committees. The main business was Senate No. 2516, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which came before the Senate on a Ways and Means substitute (Senate Document 2608). Senators Creem, Moore, Charles, Feingold, Keenan, and others spoke in support, describing the bill as a comprehensive consumer privacy measure with data minimization rules, limits on sensitive data, protections for minors, and strong Attorney General enforcement. Several amendments were debated, with many rejected or withdrawn, while some were adopted, including provisions on geolocation data protections, opting out of targeted advertising, affiliate and merger/acquisition protections, internal operations exemptions, parental access to child data, and a Ways and Means amendment. A number of other amendments on employee data, union data, loyalty programs, AI training, reporting, and related issues were either not adopted or held/withdrawn. After the amendment process, the Senate adopted the amended Ways and Means substitute and ordered the bill to a third reading. The bill was then passed to be engrossed on a roll call vote of 40-0. The Senate also adopted an order to adjourn to the following Monday at 11:00 a.m. and to dispense with printing a calendar. The session adjourned in memory of Darrow Logan Alexander of South Boston.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • This is a consumer...'
  • These details could be used to infer whether a consumer has a serious health condition, information about
  • You know, the consumers are extremely overwhelmed and overburdened, and they receive so much information
  • That information. In fact, cities and counties are increasingly being pushed to share information.
  • Disclosure of private information.
Summary: The committee heard several privacy and consumer protection bills, with most of the discussion focused on AI and social media. AB 1405 would create a state registry for AI auditors and set basic transparency, ethics, and qualification standards for those auditors; supporters said it would build trust and provide a foundation for future AI oversight, while some members questioned whether government should define auditor qualifications instead of industry groups. The bill was moved out on a 5-1 vote to Appropriations, with the roll left open. AB 2, by Assemblymember Lowenthal, would impose enhanced financial penalties on large social media companies when their negligence causes harm to children and teens. Supporters, including a grieving parent and Common Sense Media, argued the bill would create accountability for harmful algorithms and design choices, while opponents from TechNet, EFF, CCIA, and CalChamber warned it was vague, could chill speech, invite censorship, and raise Section 230 and First Amendment concerns. Committee members debated private right of action versus public enforcement, possible shakedown lawsuits, and whether the bill should be narrowed; the bill passed 6-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open. AB 410 would expand California’s bot disclosure law so bots must identify themselves up front and truthfully if asked, rather than only prohibiting deceptive bots in limited commercial or election contexts. Supporters said the measure would help users, especially youth and vulnerable people, know when they are interacting with AI and reduce deception online; one privacy group withdrew opposition after amendments, and other industry groups said they were no longer opposed or had no formal position. The bill passed 9-1 to Appropriations with the roll left open. The committee also approved AB 1327, which lets consumers cancel home improvement contracts by email instead of only by mail and requires phone assistance for cancellations; the Contractor State License Board withdrew opposition after amendments, and the bill passed 11-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open.
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Jun 23rd, 2026

Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:
  • SB 898 requires companies to provide information consumers can use when they purchase consumer devices
  • We need to inform consumers about these issues so they can protect themselves.
  • SB 435 is a critical piece of pro-consumer legislation that will protect consumer information and increase
  • available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not restricted
  • necessary to ensure that consumers' personal information remains deleted.
Keywords: 988, house, all
NH
Transcript Highlights:
  • Consumer Consumer Protection<00:11:34.399> okay<00:11:35.399> you<00:11:35.519> can
  • to thirdparty litigation information to thirdparty litigation information AIDS<00:26:52.960>
  • can lead to more options for consumers can lead to more options for consumers can<00:27:25.240><
  • ability to enforce the consumer ability to enforce the consumer protection<00:30:03.279> act<
  • consumers who are getting the Consumer consumers who are getting the Consumer Legal<00:48:36.640
Keywords: 928, house, all
Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 733-FN, a bill concerning third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors funding lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, increases litigation abuse, and contributes to higher insurance and consumer costs. He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with guardrails and reporting requirements on specified pages of the bill. He also noted a couple of drafting fixes, including adding the word “knowingly” and incorporating a missing section later. Members raised questions about the bill’s foreign-entity language, especially the provision allowing a governor or the Department of Safety to designate a country as a threat to critical infrastructure. Representative Cole said he would have lawyers review that issue. Another member asked whether the bill would prohibit a party from obtaining outside funding for a lawsuit; Cole clarified that the bill is intended as a reporting measure, not a ban, and that disclosure would be required. He also said the bill is aimed at American citizens rather than foreign-backed financing, and that some states had considered caps on such arrangements, though this bill does not. Brandon Gratz of the Attorney General’s office testified that the enforcement language appears too limited, because it would allow only civil penalties and not broader Consumer Protection Act remedies such as injunctions or restitution. He suggested the Attorney General may not have meaningful authority under the bill as written and raised possible insurance-law issues. Commissioner D.J. Benton-Court of the Insurance Department said the disclosure could help insurers better assess risk and potentially soften the hard insurance market by improving transparency, competition, underwriting, innovation, and claims management. He also said the bill likely needs further work on jurisdiction and enforcement, and that the committee may need to coordinate with the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and possibly banking regulators. No vote was taken in the portion provided.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • SB 898 requires companies to provide information consumers can use when they purchase consumer devices
  • We need to inform consumers about these issues so they can protect themselves.
  • SB 435 is a critical piece of pro-consumer legislation that will protect consumer information and increase
  • made available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not
  • necessary to ensure that consumers' personal information remains deleted.
Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.
FL

Florida 2025 Regular Session

January 14, 2025 - 01:00 PM

Transcript Highlights:
  • So this is for informational purposes.
  • But we are absolutely on the consumer side.
  • The consumers—tighten, put some screws on that—to ensure the consumers are getting that mandatory discount
  • I've got people leave. the consumer.
  • experience and what this consumer, Mr.
Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting on homeowners property insurance, with members from both parties introducing themselves and repeatedly noting that insurance affordability, roof condition, claims handling, and storm recovery are top concerns for their districts. Chair Yeager said the meeting was intended as an educational discussion rather than a legislative debate, and introduced a panel that included Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski, consumer Chad Carr, agent Mary Catherine Lawler, insurer executive Melissa Burt DeVries, and policyholder attorney Chip Merlin. The panel and members discussed major cost drivers in Florida homeowners insurance, including inflation, home age, roof age, mitigation features, claims history, litigation costs, reinsurance, and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Commissioner Yaworski said underwriting has become more sophisticated and that litigation costs, reinsurance, and replacement-cost inflation all affect premiums; he also said litigation is down about 30% and average requested rate increases have fallen from about 22.1% in 2022 to 0.8% today. DeVries said age of home, replacement cost, roof age, and coverage choices can materially change premiums, and explained that reinsurance is a major expense passed through to consumers. Merlin emphasized transparency concerns, argued that insurers are increasingly individualizing risk, and said consumers often struggle with coverage limits, deductibles, and claim denials. Members asked about flood coverage, hurricane deductibles, managed repair programs, mitigation credits, new insurer capitalization, and whether savings from reforms are reaching consumers. Yaworski explained that flood is generally excluded from homeowners policies and covered separately, that hurricane deductibles are mandatory in Florida and usually around 5%, and that the office tracks savings from reforms through rate filings and insurer discussions. He said the state is updating mitigation discounts and monitoring new entrants closely for solvency and market conduct. Several members and panelists said recent reforms have helped reduce some abuses and litigation, but many consumers are still seeing higher premiums because replacement costs and reinsurance remain elevated. No votes or formal actions were taken.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • So let's bring this back to consumers.
  • They apply to low-income consumers as well.
  • ultimately for the individual consumer.
  • Just look at the consumer experience.
  • His vision was that we need to have a consumer partner or consumer advocate partner to the state.
Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.