Transcript Highlights:

• of the Attorney General on the Consumer Data<00:00:52.240> Privacy<00:00:52.760> Act.
• So, in May of 2024, the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act was signed into law.
• was signed Consumer Data Privacy Act was signed into<00:01:42.400> law.
• It also imposes obligations on businesses that are all designed to protect consumer privacy.
• privacy rights, do assert their consumer privacy rights, do a<00:10:03.040> once<00:10:03.760

Bills: HF3794, HF3408

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, consumer protection, price setting, biometric data, retail, privacy, 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 3, 2026, and then received a presentation from the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General on the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act. Assistant Attorney General Caitlin Miko and Deputy Attorney General Jessica Whitney reviewed the law’s scope, consumer rights, business obligations, and enforcement history. They said the law took effect July 31, 2025, gives Minnesotans rights to access, delete, and opt out of sale, profiling, and targeted advertising, and is enforced by the Attorney General with penalties up to $7,500 per violation. They reported more than 200 complaints in the first six months, many warning letters, and a shift from education to active enforcement now that the initial warning-letter period has expired. Committee members asked about how the universal opt-out works, what happens when companies deny deletion or editing requests, how the office determines willful noncompliance, and whether the law could burden small businesses. The AG’s office said the opt-out can be set through privacy-protective browsers or extensions, companies must respond to consumer requests within 45 days, small businesses are exempt as defined by the SBA, and investigations look for patterns and evidence of willful conduct rather than minor technical violations. The office also said it needs additional funding to fully staff enforcement efforts and noted that it has already issued subpoenas and civil investigative demands. The committee then took up House File 3408, the Stop Grocery Surveillance Price Gouging Act. The author explained that the bill would prohibit retail grocers, physical and online, from setting individualized prices based on consumer information, would limit certain uses of facial recognition and electronic shelf labels, and would preserve narrow exceptions for discounts and loyalty programs. Public testimony followed from the Minnesota Farmers Union in support, arguing that grocery consolidation and surveillance pricing could worsen already high food costs and harm fair competition. The Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the premise that grocery stores use surveillance pricing, said shelf prices are generally uniform and set from a single storewide database, and argued electronic shelf labels are efficient and not nefarious. A technology company representative similarly said ESLs do not use personal data or facial recognition, prices are uniform, and a 2025 study found no meaningful price increases after ESL adoption. The bill was laid over for possible further discussion after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• But in general there are protections that would cover health data in the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy
• But in general there are protections that would cover health data in the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy
• Minnesota Consumer uh data privacy act Minnesota Consumer uh data privacy act uh<01:12:59.760> including
• We work with legislators across the country to develop data privacy frameworks that protect consumers
• We work with legislators across the country to develop data privacy frameworks that protect consumers

Bills: HF3642, HF2700, HF3615

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, prohibition, customer payouts, cryptocurrency regulation, consumer privacy, data privacy, health data, sensitive data, Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, personal data, data broker, targeted advertising, geofencing, location tracking, health care privacy, patient privacy, consent, minor privacy, children's privacy

Summary: The Commerce Finance and Policy Committee met on House File 3642, which would prohibit virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. The bill was laid over, and the committee adopted a DE1 author’s amendment. Chair Kaggel and Representative Perryman described the measure as a response to widespread scams using crypto kiosks, especially against older adults and other vulnerable people, and said they would continue working with the Department of Commerce and other stakeholders. Testimony from law enforcement and advocates strongly supported the ban. A St. Cloud police sergeant and a Woodbury detective described cases in which victims lost large sums, said the current safeguards and refund rules are being bypassed, and argued that the kiosks are difficult to investigate because funds move quickly and often overseas. An AARP Minnesota volunteer also supported the bill, saying kiosks are a preferred tool for scammers and that existing protections have not kept pace with the problem. The Department of Commerce said it strongly supports the bill and reported that it has received 120 complaints over three years involving nearly $1 million in reported losses, with 2025 the worst year so far. The main opposition came from CoinFlip’s general counsel, who argued that the problem is fraud generally, not kiosks themselves, and said Minnesota already has consumer protections, including refunds for eligible victims. He urged stronger regulation rather than a ban, citing blockchain analytics, hold periods, and 24-hour customer service as alternatives. Committee members then asked questions about how long kiosks have operated in Minnesota, how many there are, who owns them, and the scale of losses; Commerce said there are hundreds statewide, operated by a variety of companies, and that reported losses are likely undercounts.

Bills: HB282, HB283, HB95

Keywords: government contracting, state agencies, local agencies, procurement, marketing contracts, advertising contracts, media monitoring, fact-checking, news ratings, bias ratings, misinformation, journalistic standards, news accuracy, vendor certification, contractor certification, public relations, media analytics, government procurement, Alabama, data privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll tell you, under the Consumer Data Privacy Act, consumers do have a right to know who the companies
• data privacy statute to, for example, delete consumer information or provide it to them.
• data privacy statute to, for example, delete consumer information or provide it to them.
• data privacy statute to, for example, delete consumer information or provide it to them.
• data privacy statute to, for example, delete consumer information or provide it to them.

Bills: HF4456, HF4544, HF3698

Keywords: data broker, data brokerage, consumer privacy, personal data, data privacy, Minnesota attorney general, registration, public registry, civil penalties, enforcement, special revenue fund, privacy rights, data sales, data collection, consumer protection, chapter 325M, controller, processor, data broker registry, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, now it's just if you control 25,000 consumers or more, and those are Alabama citizens, or 25% of
• Um, now it's just if you um control<00:10:37.600> 25,000<00:10:38.320> consumers<00:10:
• 38.720> or<00:10:38.880> more,<00:10:39.120> and control 25,000 consumers or more
• , and control 25,000 consumers or more, and those<00:10:39.519> are<00:10:39.680> Alabama

Bills: HB351, HB351

Keywords: ad valorem tax, road funding, local government, referendum, Choctaw County, data privacy, consumer rights, personal data, data protection, Alabama Personal Data Protection Act, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for the AG Office of Consumer for the AG Office of Consumer Protection,<00:37:57.120> Department
• <00:40:45.680> protection forth a very strong consumer protection forth a very strong consumer
• <00:45:18.800> protection the most consumer protection the most consumer protection is<00:
• <01:25:25.960> and wondering if part of privacy and wondering if part of privacy and incorporated
• SB 888 SD2 relating to consumer SB 888 SD2 relating to consumer protection.<01:38:02.280> The

Bills: SB1166, SB888, SB2387, SB2471

Keywords: insurance, climate change, responsible parties, damages, Hawaii Property Insurance Association, Hurricane Relief Fund, civil action, climate disasters, extreme weather, SB888, Hawaii, consumer protection, smart home security, smart household security device, home security camera, video doorbell, Ring, Nest, connected devices, internet of things

Summary: The committee heard SB 1166 SD2, a bill on insurance and climate-related damages that would authorize the Hawaii Property Insurance Association and, in amended versions discussed during testimony, other public and private entities to pursue civil actions to recover losses tied to climate disasters and extreme weather. DCCA’s Insurance Division and the Department of the Attorney General raised legal concerns, saying the bill’s scope may not fit the insurance code section being amended, that it could create subject-matter and title issues, and that some subrogation language may be duplicative of existing rate-filing practice. Lawyers for Justice opposed the measure, arguing it conflicts with existing subrogation law and recent Hawaii Supreme Court rulings that treat the judicial lien process as the exclusive remedy. The American Petroleum Institute also opposed, warning the bill would add liability and litigation risk for companies operating under existing permits and could undermine energy reliability and investment. Supporters said the bill would help shift climate-related insurance costs away from residents and onto fossil fuel companies and other responsible parties. Testimony in support came from the Polluters Pay Hawaii Coalition, Center for Climate Integrity, Hawaii Island Council, Our Hawaii, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, who described recent flooding, storm damage, rising premiums, non-renewals, and underinsurance as evidence of a worsening climate-driven insurance crisis. Several supporters urged amendments to give the Attorney General explicit authority to recover insurance-related losses for the Hurricane Relief Fund, HPIA, and private insurers, and to ensure recovered amounts benefit policyholders. Committee members questioned whether HPIA is a private entity, whether the Attorney General could represent it, whether the bill could create double recovery or affect pending climate litigation, and whether insurers would have standing or damages if they are only paying contractual claims. The committee then took up SB 888 SD2, a consumer protection bill that would restrict smart household security device operators from sharing user data with law enforcement without consent or a judicial order, and would bar conditioning device use on such consent. The Office of Consumer Protection testified in support and said an Illinois law could serve as a useful template for exceptions to the warrant requirement. An individual supporter said the measure would protect immigrant communities, judges, and others from surveillance and misuse of private data. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided, and the chair noted additional written testimony submitted in support of SB 1166.

Bills: HB146, HB276

Keywords: youthful offender, criminal justice, capital murder, public safety, victims' rights, social media, minor safety, child online safety, teen accounts, parental controls, age verification, digital privacy, online platform regulation, content moderation, deceptive trade practice, Attorney General enforcement, cyber safety, mental health, youth mental health, screen time

Transcript Highlights:

• part of their network, the consumer part of their network, the consumer would<00:14:48.720> most
• Thank you. with Office of Consumer Protection. Um, with Office of Consumer Protection.
• consumer protection. Thank you. consumer protection. Thank you.
• It protects consumer service in Hawaii.
• <00:50:32.720> Uh relating to consumer protection. Uh relating to consumer protection.

Bills: HB1849, HB2000, HB1753, HB1511, HB276, HB1513, HB2188, HB1876

Keywords: licensing, professional license, individual taxpayer identification number, immigration, state residency, right to repair, wheelchairs, consumer protection, repair providers, device documentation, HB1753, Hawaii Social Media Data Deletion Act, social media, account deletion, data deletion, privacy, consumer privacy, personal information, sensitive personal information, data retention

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 10, 2026, and heard testimony on several bills. HB 1849 relating to licensing drew comments from DCCA’s Professional and Vocational Licensing Division and the Hawaii Real Estate Commission, both of which stood on written testimony. The Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights testified in strong support, emphasizing that some immigrants, including DACA recipients, are already contributing in Hawaii and that the state should help create pathways for them to remain and advance professionally. No vote or final action was taken on HB 1849 during the portion shown. The committee then heard HB 2000, the wheelchair right-to-repair bill. Encart opposed the measure, arguing that repair delays are largely driven by insurance prior authorization and that wheelchair repairs involve FDA-regulated medical devices where improper repairs could create health risks. Peter Fritz testified in support, saying the bill was modeled on similar laws in other states and that he had personal experience through his sister’s use of a wheelchair. Members questioned whether repairs done outside insurer networks might not be reimbursed, and Fritz said that was a concern but that the need for timely repair outweighed it. The committee also discussed HB 1753 on social media, where DCCA’s Office of Consumer Protection supported the bill but suggested an amendment to the definition of personal information. On HB 1511 relating to consumer protection, DCCA’s Insurance Division supported the bill, while the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association offered comments seeking to preserve legitimate manufacturer and dealer communications about vehicles, warranties, recalls, and related services. The committee also took up HB 276 HD1 and HB 1513 on condominiums. The Hawaii Real Estate Commission offered comments on HB 276 HD1. For HB 1513, the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority supported the bill, but DCCA’s Insurance Division opposed it, warning that diverting HHRF funds could weaken reinsurance arrangements and raise premiums for consumers who rely on the fund. Members questioned whether the proposed condo loan program would need HHRF money and whether the amounts in the bill were necessary, and the division said it opposed using HHRF for that purpose. The committee also heard HB 2188 on housing, where OCP supported the measure and the Hawaii Association of Realtors raised concerns about conflicts with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the use of tenant screening reports, noting that a working group is already addressing landlord-tenant issues. Members asked OCP to research how other states handle similar laws and whether additional language is needed to avoid federal conflict. Finally, on HB 1876 relating to mental health, the Department of Health’s Adult Mental Health Division supported the bill but said it remains opposed to harmful, non-evidence-based treatment modalities; Pride at Work Hawaii also testified in strong support. No final votes or committee decisions were reported in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if you go right now to any app store and just type in "children's privacy" or "child protection,"
• I'm a big proponent of consumer protection. Protection for minors, um, but I don't...
• We believe that the easiest, most accurate, and most privacy protective solution is to require app stores
• 19 states have comprehensive state privacy laws, and that now ropes every single app developer into a
• child... ...every single app developer into a child privacy compliance framework across the country,

Bills: SB186, SB187

Keywords: internet filtering, child protection, obscene content, civil liability, manufacturers, app store, app store provider, app developer, mobile app, age verification, parental consent, minor safety, child online safety, parental controls, age gating, digital privacy, data protection, in-app purchases, online consumer protection, deceptive trade practice

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically, this bill adds a definition of health data to the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act.
• 00:47:42.600> compliance background as a privacy compliance background as a privacy compliance
• So, the Consumer Data Privacy Act in 325M that this is amending does not apply to government entities
• <01:02:38.560> in There is no expectation of privacy in There is no expectation of privacy
• and consumers. and consumers.

Bills: SF1750, HF2700, HF1606, HF3356, HF3946, HF3970, HF3658, HF3875, HF2627, SF856, HF1268, HF1338

Keywords: common interest community, CIC, homeowners association, HOA, condominium, planned community, cooperative, unit owner, association board, declarant, declarant control, special declarant rights, assessment lien, foreclosure, late fees, fines, attorney fees, resale disclosure, annual report, maintenance plan

Transcript Highlights:

• a violation of the digital goods advertising requirements an unlawful practice under the Arizona Consumer
• allows the Attorney General to investigate and take appropriate actions as provided by the Arizona Consumer
• a violation of the digital goods advertising requirements an unlawful practice under the Arizona Consumer
• allows the Attorney General to investigate and take appropriate actions as provided by the Arizona Consumer
• And take appropriate actions as provided by the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Bills: HB2010, HB2192, HB2310, HB2501

Keywords: digital goods, advertising, ownership, license, consumer protection, refund policies, streaming services, minors, content creators, online platforms, compensation, trust accounts, child protection, video content, privacy, employment, independent contractor, marketplace, digital services, contractual agreements

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2010, which would prohibit sellers of digital goods from using terms like “buy” or “purchase” in a way that implies unrestricted ownership when the consumer is actually receiving a license, and would require clearer disclosures, post-transaction notices, prorated refunds or alternative access if license terms change, and enforcement under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The sponsor said the bill responds to consumers being misled about digital purchases and to concerns that licensed content can be altered or removed after sale. The bill was approved on a 7-0 do pass vote. The committee also heard House Bill 2192, which would require compensation protections for minors featured in monetized online content, including trust-account requirements similar to child actor protections, recordkeeping, and a process for adults who were featured as minors to request removal or editing of content that identifies them. Google testified in support, saying the bill mirrors existing protections for child actors and provides a uniform standard; the sponsor said it addresses the growing child influencer industry. An amendment was adopted to clarify that platforms may rely on existing trust-and-safety systems and are not required to proactively monitor user content or be liable for third-party content if they comply with mitigation requirements. The bill then passed 7-0 as amended. House Bill 2310 was described as a technical fix to Arizona’s qualified marketplace contractor law for gig-economy platforms, clarifying that contracts may be terminated without cause on reasonable notice and that the contractor may terminate unilaterally. Lyft supported the measure, saying it removes ambiguity without changing the independent contractor framework; one senator questioned the wording, but the sponsor and witness said the intent was to preserve driver independence. The bill passed 7-0. The committee then heard House Bill 2501, an agency-requested measure from the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions that conforms Arizona’s appraisal management company definition to federal law by updating the definition to include administering appraisal panels and defining a 12-month period. It also passed 7-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• This practice can be misleading to the consumer and negatively impacts catfish producers and wholesalers
• No, but I believe consumers deserve a choice. Thank you for your time. Members, any questions?
• compiles a consumer report using information sourced from another consumer reporting agency or a third
• In our increasingly digital society, consumer reports play a pivotal role.
• So this is a consumer protection bill. I like to call them constituent protection bills.

Bills: SB315, SB584, SB1228, SB1484, SB1860, SB1802

Keywords: DNA privacy, genetic privacy, genetic testing, genetic material, DNA ownership, property right in DNA, genetic consent, biological sample, genomics, genetic data, HIPAA, health information privacy, health care provider, research ethics, human subjects research, law enforcement DNA, forensic DNA, paternity testing, medical examiner, genetic discrimination

Bills: SB 483, SB 522, SB 783, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1762, SB 1856, SB 1877, SB 1977

Keywords: utility, proprietary information, customer data, data protection, electric service, customer information, emergency communication, electric utility, privacy, certification, public accountants, interstate licensing, accounting, regulatory amendment, energy efficiency, construction regulations, building codes, Texas, sustainability, cost-effectiveness

Bills: SB 483, SB 522, SB 783, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1762, SB 1856, SB 1877, SB 1977

Keywords: utility, proprietary information, customer data, data protection, electric service, customer information, emergency communication, electric utility, privacy, certification, public accountants, interstate licensing, accounting, regulatory amendment, energy efficiency, construction regulations, building codes, Texas, sustainability, cost-effectiveness

Transcript Highlights:

• But this is data privacy.
• Uh, this is because the federal government hasn't acted; it probably won't act on privacy, and the fact
• But this is data privacy.
• Uh, this is because the federal government hasn't acted; it probably won't act on privacy, and the fact
• Uh, this is because the federal government hasn't acted; it probably won't act on privacy, and the fact

Bills: HB351, SB109, HB351, SB109

Keywords: ad valorem tax, road funding, local government, referendum, Choctaw County, Tuskegee University, education funding, Alabama Education Trust Fund, appropriation, agricultural research, data privacy, consumer rights, personal data, data protection, Alabama Personal Data Protection Act, peer-to-peer car sharing, vehicle insurance, liability, shared vehicles, taxation

Bills: SB140, HB235, HB276, HB317, HB340

Keywords: Coach Safely Act, youth athletics, noncompliance penalties, Department of Public Health, youth athlete, social media, age verification, minors, under 16, children online safety, online privacy, platform regulation, deceptive trade practice, Attorney General, civil penalties, punitive damages, consumer protection, account creation, algorithmic feeds, internet safety

Transcript Highlights:

• to Minnesota consumer protection to Minnesota investors. investors. investors.
• I believe the bill harms consumers, takes away consumer choice and where to purchase a puppy, and threatens
• What's happening in Florida with $25 million being led over to consumers in Florida in one year.
• What's happening in Florida with $25 million being led over to consumers in Florida in one year.
• <01:20:39.200> and both the protection of the consumer and both the protection of the consumer

Bills: HF1606, HF3733, HF743, HF2627, HF4071

Keywords: nudification technology, image rights, privacy protection, sexual exploitation, cybersecurity, recreational camping, utility fees, electricity charges, consumer protection, energy policy, health insurance, insulin, step therapy, diabetes, patient care, prescription drugs, pet shops, animal welfare, dog sales, cat sales

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically, it's protecting the dollars of an existing HSA, and it's basically a consumer protection bill
• Basically, it's protecting the dollars of an existing HSA, and it's basically a consumer protection bill
• Basically, it's protecting the dollars of an existing HSA, and it's basically a consumer protection bill
• Basically, it's protecting the dollars of an existing HSA, and it's basically a consumer protection bill
• Basically, it's protecting the dollars of an existing HSA, and it's basically a consumer protection bill

Bills: HB300, HB40, SB19, HB283, HB179, HB296, HB300, HB40, SB19, HB283, HB179, HB296

Keywords: HB300, Choctaw County, probate court, probate judge, recording fee, filing fee, deed tax, mortgage tax, deeds, mortgages, property records, recordation, county local act, local legislation, technology upgrades, digitalization of records, recordkeeping, county treasury, special fund, court administration

Transcript Highlights:

• Pulling straight in, trying to grab personal or otherwise protected consumer data that they would have

Bills: SB1670, SB1716, SB1521

Keywords: security breach, data breach, cybersecurity, breach notification, privacy, consumer protection, class action, civil liability, Attorney General, district attorney, financial institution, banking regulator, data security, reasonable safeguards, breach notice, Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, artificial intelligence, AI, generative AI, chatbot

Transcript Highlights:

• protection with consumer financial access.
• This is real consumer protection here with teeth.
• The bill creates consumer protection for pet sales and financing agreements.
• Data security and privacy are major concerns with this policy.
• They were like, there's privacy invasion.

Bills: S0198, S0422, S1236, S1356, S1456, S1722

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, money services business, regulation, financial services, consumer protection, cryptocurrency, registration, ADS-B, automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, aviation, airports, airport fees, landing fees, departure fees, touch-and-go landing, general aviation, pilot privacy, airspace radius, aircraft tracking

Summary: The committee first postponed SB 1456, then heard SB 1236, which would condition state economic development incentives on employers using secret-ballot union elections and prohibit neutrality agreements. The sponsor argued the bill protects workers from coercion and applies only to companies receiving taxpayer-funded incentives; opponents said it was government interference, likely to hurt contractors, apprenticeships, and business growth, and raised concerns about federal preemption and Attorney General enforcement. After debate, the committee reported SB 1236 favorably on a recorded vote. The committee then considered CS/SB 198, a measure to regulate cryptocurrency kiosks by requiring operator registration, fraud warnings, transaction limits, blockchain analytics, receipts, and refund protections for certain first-time transactions tied to fraud. Supporters from the banking industry, AARP, and others said the bill would help stop scams that are targeting seniors and vulnerable adults; one industry witness supported the bill but suggested narrowing the limits for existing users and shortening the new-customer period. The committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up CS/SB 1356 on dog breeding, pet sales, and breeder registration. The sponsor said the bill is intended to curb puppy mills, improve animal welfare, and add consumer protections, while an amendment removed state oversight of local animal shelters. Pet store representatives supported much of the bill but objected to the three-day waiting period for financed purchases, expanded reimbursement, and unfair trade practice penalties; others argued the bill would add red tape and litigation. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also heard SB 1722 on app stores and minors, which would require age verification, parental consent for minors, app-content disclosures, and enforcement by the Department of Legal Affairs. Supporters said the bill would help parents protect children online; opponents warned it could force collection of sensitive personal data, create privacy and constitutional problems, and duplicate existing parental tools. Members debated the balance between child safety and privacy, and the committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, the committee heard CS/SB 422 on ADS-B aviation data, which would bar use of ADS-B information to calculate certain landing or access fees; an amendment added departures to the restriction. Pilots supported the bill as a safety and privacy measure, while airport representatives opposed it as undermining airport finances and shifting costs. The amendment was adopted, and the hearing on the bill began with testimony from both sides.