Transcript Highlights:

• that are taking steps to protect that are taking steps to protect consumer<00:01:53.160> privacy
• We're trying to protect people.
• We're trying to protect people.
• We're trying to protect people.
• . discrimination. discrimination.

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:

• non-discrimination non-discrimination um<00:06:16.400> sections<00:06:17.039> and<00:06
• Protecting his community wasn't just his profession. It was his purpose.
• Protecting his community firefighter.
• our communities sometimes carry protect our communities sometimes carry burdens<00:15:10.639> long
• bicycles to have to stop um on protected bicycles to have to stop um on protected zones.<00:32:08.640

Bills: HF3676, HF3593, HF3785, HF3774, HF4111, HF3513

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:53:14.240> and disabilities retain protections and disabilities retain protections and
• discrimination discrimination based<00:59:28.799> on<00:59:29.680> disability.
• So that is the first form of discrimination that I experience is sex discrimination in education.
• sex discrimination for 35 years. sex discrimination for 35 years.
• sex discrimination in education. sex discrimination in education.

Bills: HF3661, HF2380, HF3468, HF3483

Keywords: facial recognition, privacy, government surveillance, public safety, data protection, civil liberties, disability rights, discrimination, accommodations, employment, housing, public services, education, civil action, failure to render aid, damages, Minnesota Statutes, legal liability, trespass, civil immigration enforcement

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from February 24 and February 26. It then took up House File 3661, a bill originally authored by Representative Gomez and presented by Representative Feist, which would ban government use of facial recognition technology and be re-referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. The committee adopted the A1 amendment, described as a technical amendment based on House Research recommendations, before hearing testimony on the bill. Representative Feist said the bill is aimed at preventing serious privacy and civil-liberties harms, including secretive surveillance, racial and gender bias, and the lack of statewide rules governing government use of facial recognition. Supportive testimony came from Chad Marlo of the ACLU, who argued the issue is bipartisan, the technology has accuracy problems, and government use is expanding against vulnerable groups. Chris Wayland of Restore the Fourth Minnesota also supported a ban, emphasizing the inability to opt out of facial recognition and the lack of standards, disclosure, and community input. Rich Newmeister urged stronger transparency measures, including agency policies and public notice in buildings using the technology. Major Spencer Baky of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office opposed an outright ban, saying facial recognition is used only as an investigative lead, not for positive identification or real-time surveillance, and that results are corroborated before use. He said the office has used the tool in hundreds of investigations and supports a statutory framework with safeguards instead of a ban. In member discussion, Representative Hudson argued a blanket ban was too broad and suggested a more targeted evidentiary approach, while Representative Moller and Representative Kurr expressed concern about misuse and the federal government's use of the technology. Representative Durant asked whether there was a current Minnesota problem and whether stakeholders and law enforcement had been involved in drafting the bill. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided, beyond adoption of the amendment and the committee’s continued consideration of HF 3661.

Transcript Highlights:

• Act, the Judicial Judicial Protections Act, the Judicial Data<00:10:01.839> Protections<00:10
• Act, um making it a Data Protections Act, um making it a felony<00:10:04.800> for<00:10:05.120
• Um section six prohibits discrimination<00:10:10.720> of<00:10:10.959> a<00:10:11.120><
• c> participant<00:10:11.600> based<00:10:11.920> on discrimination of a participant
• I do know there's a federal program of witness protection, but I'm not sure of similar compatibility.

Bills: HF3676, HF3683, HF3395

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Summary: The committee first approved minutes from February 19 and February 26, while skipping the February 24 minutes because of a drafting error that would be corrected later. It then took up House File 3676, a Safe at Home program bill described by Rep. Nash as arising from a constituent’s dangerous identity exposure and intended to tighten protections for participants, including allowing emancipated minors to enroll. Testimony from the Secretary of State’s office explained that the bill would clarify who may apply for a minor, require proof of guardianship, strengthen court findings before a participant’s physical address can be disclosed, increase penalties for harmful disclosure, prohibit discrimination based on participation, require state agencies to designate a Safe at Home contact person, allow use of the Safe at Home card as proof of residence for certain ID purposes, and require judge training. Members raised concerns about federal compatibility, constitutionality of court-related provisions, and the need for a fiscal note on the felony penalty. Several sections were noted as being removed or modified in a later engrossment, and the committee voted to re-refer HF 3676 to the Transportation Finance and Policy Committee. The committee then heard House File 3683, which would direct the state budget forecast to include the estimated cost of fraud. Rep. Nash argued that fraud is a significant but unquantified drain on state resources and said the bill would adapt existing forecast language used for inflation to track fraud costs. Minnesota Management and Budget Deputy Commissioner Anna Mingi testified that fraud is unacceptable and that the agency works to prevent and detect it, but said the twice-yearly forecast is not the right tool for this kind of retrospective analysis. She explained that if fraud is identified, the forecast would reflect reduced spending through program integrity actions rather than a separate fraud-cost line item. The bill was moved and referred to the general register after a roll call was requested.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:33.840> for provides important pro protections for provides important pro protections
• privacy protections for minor victims. privacy protections for minor victims.
• should be similarly protected. should be similarly protected.
• protection against employer retaliation. protection against employer retaliation.
• the alleged discrimination took place. the alleged discrimination took place.

Bills: HF4075, HF3826, HF3825, HF3827, HF3459, HF3711, HF4200, HF3908, HF3712

Keywords: firearm restrictions, domestic violence, public safety, court orders, criminal convictions, identity theft, subpoena authority, fraud, statute of limitations, financial crime, victim notification, expungement, criminal justice, plea agreements, minor victims, identification protection, stalking, crime data, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, law enforcement grants

Transcript Highlights:

• protect the citizens of Kentucky. protect the citizens of Kentucky. Thank<00:55:01.040> you.
• with this protection you with this protection we<00:58:11.800> would<00:58:11.960> have
• I'm going to use the word discriminate I'm going to use the word discriminate or<00:59:01.320>
• have the protections of the military. have the protections of the military.
• protection, you know, on our side. protection, you know, on our side.

Bills: HB339

Keywords: Civil Air Patrol, CAP, emergency leave, job protection, employment discrimination, leave of absence, volunteer service, emergency response, Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, state employee leave, military leave, public employees, local government employers, reinstatement rights, seniority protection, unpaid leave, Meeting Start 00:00:03 Roll Call 00:00:14 Discussion of Local Law Enforcement Issues 00:03:08 Discussion of Civil Air Patrol Employment Protections 00:50:46 Adjournment 01:06:07, 958, all

Bills: SCR184, SCR169, SCR47, SCR57, SCR170, SCR163, SCR189

Keywords: SCR184, Senate Concurrent Resolution 184, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, HCRC, civil rights, anti-discrimination, algorithmic decision making, automated decision making, artificial intelligence, AI bias, machine learning, employment screening, tenant screening, housing discrimination, credit decisions, lending discrimination, public benefits eligibility, state services, equal opportunity, algorithmic discrimination

Summary: The committee met in Room 430 on April 17 at 8:30 a.m. and heard several resolutions focused on Hawaii’s sister-state and international relationships. Measures discussed included SCR 184, SCR 169 SD1, SCR 47, SCR 57 SD1, SCR 170 SD1, and SCR 163 SD1. Testimony generally supported expanding or formalizing ties with Japanese prefectures and other partners, including Yamaguchi, Okayama, and Aotearoa/New Zealand, as well as maintaining the Hawaii-Taiwan relationship. DBED’s Dennis Ling explained that sister-state agreements provide a framework for broader government, nonprofit, and private-sector relationships, and cited existing exchanges in transportation, health, education, culinary rice development, biosecurity, and food innovation. Catherine Stanway of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife supported the Aotearoa measure for predator control, biosecurity, and conservation cooperation. Jerry Chang of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office testified in support of the Taiwan resolution, noting 33 years of sister-state ties and ongoing cooperation in education, culture, economy, and disaster management. One witness raised a concern about language in SCR 57 SD1 related to double taxation, saying that portion did not relate to the sister-state relationship, but the committee chose not to amend the measure to avoid possible delay or conference issues. A committee member also asked about how sister-state relationships work and whether other states have similar country-level arrangements; Ling said Hawaii has an MOU with Israel and mentioned Singapore as another possible partner, while noting that such arrangements often depend on the governor and are not standardized across states. After testimony, the committee voted to recommend passage of all measures as is. SCR 184, SCR 169 SD1, SCR 47, SCR 57 SD1, SCR 170 SD1, and SCR 163 SD1 were all adopted by the committee without amendments. Some members were excused during the hearing, and the meeting adjourned after the final vote.

Bills: HB139, HB172, HB156

Keywords: HB139, Alabama discrimination, civil rights, public accommodations, employment discrimination, equal access, protected classes, race discrimination, sex discrimination, religious discrimination, age discrimination, disability discrimination, national origin discrimination, school board discrimination, labor organization, employment agency, retaliation, private right of action, punitive damages, attorney fees

Transcript Highlights:

• We could see a bill get a wide majority of votes if it protects consumers, if it protects our national
• consumers and protects national security.
• consumers and to protect the financial system.
• This bill needs stronger consumer protections.
• The standing of the U.S. dollar protects consumers and protects our national security.

Bills: SB875

Keywords: banking regulation, federal agencies, reputational risk, financial services, supervision, FIRM Act, bank supervision, depository institutions, federal banking agencies, FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve, NCUA, CFPB, credit unions, Operation Choke Point, financial discrimination, safety and soundness, supervisory guidance, examination manual

Summary: This meeting focused on the markup of the Genius Act and the FIRM Act, two significant pieces of legislation addressing stablecoin regulation and the financial industry's regulatory framework. The Chairman noted the importance of providing clarity to the digital asset community and protecting American consumers, while also promoting innovation and competition within the financial sector. Members of both parties expressed varying viewpoints, with some highlighting concerns related to national security and the potential risks associated with stablecoins.

Transcript Highlights:

• :54.160> laws after other anti-discrimination laws after other anti-discrimination laws throughout
• In fact, it does the protections.
• You could protect that data there.
• have this even if they put this protect have this even if they put this protect if<00:47:01.119>
• <00:59:11.440> in unfair and should remain protected in unfair and should remain protected

Bills: HF3676, HF2959, HF3233

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Bills: SB 458, SB 819, SB 1238, SB 1642, SB 1643, SB 1644, SB 1791, SB 1810, SB 1824, SB 1825, SB 758, SB 1455, SB 1706

Keywords: renewable energy, solar power, wind energy, public interest determination, environmental impact, property rights, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, insurance, discrimination, marital status, widowers, spousal death, equitable treatment, Texas Department of Insurance, commission appointments, insurance regulation, oversight, consumer advocacy, insurance rates, property insurance

Bills: SB 458, SB 819, SB 1238, SB 1642, SB 1643, SB 1644, SB 1791, SB 1810, SB 1824, SB 1825, SB 758, SB 1455, SB 1706

Keywords: renewable energy, solar power, wind energy, public interest determination, environmental impact, property rights, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, insurance, discrimination, marital status, widowers, spousal death, equitable treatment, Texas Department of Insurance, commission appointments, insurance regulation, oversight, consumer advocacy, insurance rates, property insurance

Bills: SB 458, SB 819, SB 1238, SB 1642, SB 1643, SB 1644, SB 1791, SB 1810, SB 1824, SB 1825, SB 758, SB 1455, SB 1706

Keywords: renewable energy, solar power, wind energy, public interest determination, environmental impact, property rights, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, insurance, discrimination, marital status, widowers, spousal death, equitable treatment, Texas Department of Insurance, commission appointments, insurance regulation, oversight, consumer advocacy, insurance rates, property insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• Last year, we passed a bill by Senator... that extended protections to doctors. ...that extended protections
• So last year, we passed a bill that extended protections to doctors, and all this does is extend that
• the rights of male and female to protect the rights and safety and well-being of all individuals and
• It's extremely rare, but those individuals have always been protected according to our laws, and um,
• It's important that we protect our women, and women are disproportionately disadvantaged by the misuse

Bills: HB45, HB79, SB79

Keywords: Medicaid, colorectal cancer, screening tests, noninvasive tests, preventive care, off-label, pharmacists, medical treatment, state board of pharmacy, employment protection, sex-based terminology, gender identity, male, female, man, woman, boy, girl, single-sex spaces, women's rights

Transcript Highlights:

• The business must comply with all regulations that protect... protect health and safety and ensure the
• So, you talk about discrimination.
• Uh, excuse my ignorance, but can you already sue for discrimination?
• . ...protected.
• , and we value those protections quite a bit.

Bills: HB303, HB 1107, HB 1063, HB1517, HB1991, HB2464, HB3509, HB3527, HB303

Keywords: municipality, local government, Type A, Type B, Type C, change authority, emergency medical services, civil service status, municipal government, public safety, local government code, school funding, education, state budget, local control, equity, tenant legal services, eviction, low-income tenants, disability rights

Bills: SB 1888, SB 3003, SB 2417, SB 2459, SB 3055, HB 1393, HB 2884, SB 2943

Keywords: grand jury, jury qualifications, jury wheel, small counties, Texas legislation, age verification, obscene devices, online sales, juvenile protection, penalties, antitrust, attorney general, Texas Free Enterprise, business regulations, legal confidentiality, personal identifying information, data brokers, judicial safety, civil rights, data privacy

Keywords: House Discrimination Prevention - Session 3, 926, house, all

Keywords: House Discrimination Prevention Training - Session 2, 926, house, all

Keywords: House Discrimination Prevention Training - Session 4, 926, house, all

Keywords: House Discrimination Prevention Training - Session 5, 926, house, all