Transcript Highlights:

• sensitive data under the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act.
• Minnesota Consumer uh data privacy act Minnesota Consumer uh data privacy act uh<01:12:59.760> including
• <01:18:09.440> privacy general's office, their data privacy general's office, their data privacy
• practices and data privacy. >> Thank you.
• about data practices and data privacy. about data practices and data privacy.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I would like to Data Privacy Act.
• So, in May of 2024, the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act was signed into law.
• So, in May of 2024, the Minnesota Consumer<00:01:40.520> Data<00:01:40.800> Privacy<00:
• 01:41.280> Act<00:01:41.520> was<00:01:41.680> signed Consumer Data Privacy Act
• was signed Consumer Data Privacy Act was signed into<00:01:42.400> law.

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:

• Our concern, of course, is that those exemptions in the data privacy statute exempt the data that our
• privacy statute treats what data is covered and what data is not, to ensure that consumers have a clear
• Our concern, of course, is that those exemptions in the data privacy statute exempt the data that our
• privacy statute treats what data is covered and what data is not, to ensure that consumers have a clear
• be covered by the data privacy statute.

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

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:

• We're also reviewing EIDBI billing data We're also reviewing EIDBI billing data in<00:15:29.400>
• We were looking at them with with data We were looking at them with data<00:31:02.680> analytics<
• through that your data data analytics. through that your data data analytics.
• And so, data analytics looks at trends and outliers.
• And so, data the strongest tools.

Bills: HF3542

Keywords: data privacy, investigative data, welfare system, public funds, transparency, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• access to data on motans like how how access to data on motans like how how many<00:51:18.000> times
• data will indeed be kept private?
• > vulnerable<00:52:32.240> people Minnesota's data on vulnerable people Minnesota's data on
• Nothing about protected data, nothing about private data that is included in there so that we can do
• Data Practices Act. Data Practices Act. >> Chair<01:37:16.400> Nor.

Bills: HF3378

Keywords: human services, Optum reports, data privacy, transparency, legislative oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And the data tells us that, too.
• And the data tells us that, too.
• And the data tells us that, too.
• And the data tells us that, too.
• And the data tells us that, too. better. And the data tells us that, too.

Bills: HF3542, HF3819

Keywords: data privacy, investigative data, welfare system, public funds, transparency, child care, licensing, inspections, compliance, program integrity, 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3542, authored by Representative Hudson, and first adopted the February 25 minutes. Hudson explained that the bill, as amended in a DE1, would require agencies to disclose to the public, legislators, or the press the existence of certain investigations only after the subject has been notified and the agency has decided to reduce, suspend, or withhold payments. He said the amendment was intended to avoid tipping off subjects before notification while still increasing transparency about investigations involving public funds. A separate A3 amendment was withdrawn after the DE1 was adopted. Several members questioned the bill’s scope and timing, asking what “existence of an investigation” meant and whether the proposal would disclose information before findings were complete. Hudson clarified that the bill was aimed at identifying who is being investigated, not revealing investigative details. The committee then heard extensive public testimony from child care providers and advocates, who opposed the bill and argued it would expose providers to harassment, threats, and stigma before any findings were made. Testifiers described recent threats, ICE-related disruptions, audits, overpayment findings, and the burden of CCAP compliance, saying the bill would punish providers for paperwork errors and worsen safety concerns, especially for Somali and other providers of color. A board member of the Minnesota Child Care Association also opposed the bill, saying providers had been chilled from speaking publicly because of death threats and harassment, and warning that disclosure of investigations could intensify that climate. In response, Hudson said the bill was not about targeting child care providers generally and was limited to confirmed ongoing investigations after notice to the subject. The committee then heard from Inspector General Keys, who explained that CCAP investigations are administrative, not criminal, and are based on evidence of repeated errors or financial misconduct rather than intentional fraud. He said the office looks for patterns beyond simple mistakes and that the bill’s notice requirement would not impede investigations. The discussion ended amid a brief procedural dispute over comments directed at Hudson, after which the chair returned to the bill and the Inspector General’s testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically, this bill adds a definition of health data to the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act.
• data.
• is that considered health data?
• under the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, the only thing you're really restricting is the sale,
• So, the Consumer Data Privacy Act in 325M that this is amending does not apply to government entities

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:

• It's also any group that's part of the controlling group that controls the data.
• uh from<00:10:45.040> the<00:10:45.279> sale<00:10:45.440> of<00:10:45.600> data
• ,<00:10:45.920> then<00:10:46.160> you're from the sale of data, then you're from the
• sale of data, then you're you're<00:10:46.480> you're<00:10:47.040> covered<00:10:47.360
• ><00:11:07.360> the controlling group that controls the controlling group that controls the data

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:

• And so this is a data privacy bill.
• And so this is a data privacy bill.
• And so this is a data privacy bill.
• So this is a data privacy bill.
• This is uh data privacy and how uh local jurisdictions handle that data privacy.

Bills: HF3479, HF4205, HF3782, HF4081, HF4138

Keywords: foreclosure, mortgage, redemption period, homestead, Minnesota Statutes, automated license plate reader, ALPR, license plate recognition, vehicle surveillance, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, data privacy, government data practices, law enforcement data, surveillance technology, location data, vehicle tracking, warrant requirement, probable cause, exigent circumstances

Transcript Highlights:

• And we data privacy government entities?
• data privacy on private companies. data privacy on private companies. Right? Right? Right?
• It has positive effects and it will lead to the protection of data privacy and better data management
• <00:09:10.240> privacy<00:09:10.560> and to the protection of data privacy and to the
• protection of data privacy and better<00:09:11.040> data<00:09:11.279> management<00:09

Bills: SF0020, SF0021, SF0022

Keywords: data privacy, government accountability, personal data, data retention, resident rights, stable token, liquidity, trust account, Wyoming, fund distribution, financial regulation, state commission, decentralized, nonprofit association, merger, conversion, liability, membership, governance, indemnification

Bills: SF0020, SF0021, SF0022

Keywords: data privacy, government accountability, personal data, data retention, resident rights, stable token, liquidity, trust account, Wyoming, fund distribution, financial regulation, state commission, decentralized, nonprofit association, merger, conversion, liability, membership, governance, indemnification

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's keep all the data possible. So, thank you so much. That's all I have to say.
• in this committee importance of data in this committee because<00:27:45.840> the<00:27:46.080
• on health, on decimated important data on health, on climate,<00:27:51.919> on<00:27:52.159><
• I think this is a great compromise that we can actually get data.
• Uh, Representative Klevorn talked about Representative Cleorne talked about wanting to have data and

Bills: HF3432, HF3411

Keywords: resident tuition, employment, higher education, Minnesota, tuition rates, state universities, immigration status, immigration, postsecondary education, privacy, data access, federal officers, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But all of a sudden this data was being used, and we've had a lot of discussion about data.
• I also had another question: Will those providers that are trying to sell this data or buy this data
• protections of that data.
• protections of that data.
• I mean, we have the data. We know we have the data.

Bills: SB40, SB104, SB136, SB164

Keywords: SB40, Driver Privacy and Safety Act, automated license plate reader, ALPR, license plate reader, vehicle surveillance, privacy, data sharing, law enforcement data, immigration enforcement, reproductive health care, gender-affirming care, civil liberties, surveillance, public records, Inspection of Public Records Act, New Mexico State Police, Department of Public Safety, data sovereignty, vehicle tracking

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:

• <00:24:51.720> protections just expands the Privacy protections just expands the Privacy protections
• She said that is a general protection for private data that exists in the Government Data Practices Act
• > data<00:28:40.799> Practices in the government data Practices in the government data
• Representative Stier said, “I think this bill is about parent data that’s more on the student data level
• > yeah<00:37:13.280> you the student data level um but yeah you the student data level

Bills: HF1027, HF101, HF1021

Keywords: mortgage foreclosure, redemption, foreclosure surplus, sheriff's sale, junior lienholder, mortgagor, homeowner protections, loss mitigation, dual tracking, foreclosure redemption period, certificate of redemption, certificate of sale, sheriff, county recorder, registrar of titles, homeownership center, lien priority, real property, foreclosure by advertisement, surplus funds

Transcript Highlights:

• But this is data privacy.
• that we should own to a certain degree our data and have a say so over data that belongs to us.
• But this is data privacy.
• that we should own to a certain degree our data and have a say so over data that belongs to us.
• that we should own to a certain degree our data and have a say so over data that belongs to us.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• the security data. the security data.
• There's lots of ways to redact privacy data and trade secret data. This is not right.
• There's lots of ways to redact privacy<01:26:55.120> data<01:26:55.679> and<01:26:56.000
• <01:26:57.440> This privacy data and trade secret data.
• This privacy data and trade secret data. This is<01:26:57.840> not<01:26:58.000> right.

Bills: HF3874, HF3875, HF3378

Keywords: judicial funding, Chief Justice security, fiscal year 2028, court system, judicial branch, judiciary, court notices, restitution, child protection, publication process, human services, Optum reports, data privacy, transparency, legislative oversight, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the March 3 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Minnesota Judicial Branch on House File 3874, which was laid over for possible inclusion in a finance bill. State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba and Chief Judge Michael Fritz testified in support of a supplemental funding request focused on judicial branch safety and security, along with funding to cover the employer share of Minnesota Paid Leave costs. Shorba said the branch is seeking help because it did not receive funding for paid leave in the last session and is having to hold positions open to absorb the cost. The safety and security request included five parts: personal data protection for judges and court administrators, home security, two additional staff positions for threat assessment and coordination, security for the chief justice at public events, and a revived courthouse security grant program for counties. Testimony emphasized rising threats and incidents involving judges and court staff, including examples of doxing, home surveillance, and threats involving litigants, and cited increases in reported incidents, threats, and disturbances. Fritz said the branch’s current response system is stretched and that more law-enforcement-trained staff would improve coordination and response. Members questioned why the judicial branch should receive state funding for paid leave when private employers must absorb the cost, and Shorba responded that the branch was excluded from end-of-session funding decisions and that the mandate should be funded for all branches of government. Members also asked about the threat-response process and whether local law enforcement should be used more directly. Another concern raised was whether State Patrol troopers assigned to judicial security would have the training needed for criminal-code enforcement, and Shorba said the branch is discussing that issue with the State Patrol. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if you go right now to any app store and just type in "children's privacy" or "child protection,"
• risks and opportunities for identity theft, phishing scams, and data breaches.
• If they don't have an app or tool that's accessible by children, they now have to hold that data.
• This is because of a bill that forces them to hold this data.
• Do we have any data to say how it is working? Yes, the filter bill...

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:

• Real-world cases and data show that excessive recording mandates can silence victims rather than empower

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