Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota Consumer uh data privacy act Minnesota Consumer uh data privacy act uh<01:12:59.760> including
• general's office, their data privacy general's office, their data privacy team<01:18:10.400>
• were built into a comprehensive privacy were built into a comprehensive privacy law<01:20:16.080
• > regulates<01:21:42.640> processing privacy law already regulates processing privacy law
• 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.
• was signed Consumer Data Privacy Act was signed into<00:01:42.400> law.
• And we prepared a privacy-specific And we prepared a privacy-specific complaint<00:07:23.200>
• And then lastly, their privacy rights.

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:

• changes that come from the Attorney General's office, and I have Sarah Doctori from the AG's data privacy
• Madam Chair, members, this bill adds a section to the end of the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Rights
• There we go. >> [laughter] Okay, it adds a section to the back end of the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy
• And I was lucky enough to attend the annual International Association of Privacy Professionals in DC
• Professionals in DC last week Privacy Professionals in DC last week where<00:03:03.160> this<

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

Bills: HF3378

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

Bills: HF3542

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

Bills: SB1041

Keywords: electronic monitoring, nursing care, assisted living, resident rights, privacy, consent, surveillance, 1182, all

Summary: The committee convened and announced that Senate Bill 1041 would not be heard, with the meeting limited to a presentation to keep the schedule moving. Brian Jenkins of Nalco Water, part of Ecolab, gave an informational presentation on the company’s work in the semiconductor industry, especially in Arizona. He described Ecolab’s role in helping chip manufacturers maximize production while reducing water and energy use, including data management, water reuse and recycle systems, and energy optimization for fabs. He also discussed anticipated semiconductor growth in Arizona, citing SEMI data projecting four additional fabs in the state over the next several years. Jenkins emphasized the high water and energy demands of semiconductor fabrication, explaining that fabs can use billions of gallons of water annually and that chip features have become extremely small, increasing the need for precise, resource-intensive manufacturing. He outlined technologies Ecolab uses to identify reusable water streams, model treatment options, and design and operate reuse systems, including treatment of hydrogen fluoride, CMP wastewater, and neutralized acid waste. He gave an example of a fab where Ecolab’s work reduced water consumption by 11 million gallons per year, cut contaminant discharge by 64%, and saved about $675,000 annually. Members thanked Jenkins for the presentation and referenced a prior tour of the facility. They discussed the importance of water conservation for Arizona’s growth in chip manufacturing and data centers, and encouraged follow-up conversations outside the meeting. Jenkins invited members to visit Ecolab’s facility in Naperville, Illinois. No votes were taken, and the meeting concluded after the presentation, followed by adjournment as the room was prepared for House members to join.

Bills: SB8

Keywords: sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• It's very clear in my mind that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are intent on violating taxpayer privacy laws
• People often say that, you know, I'm a privacy hawk, and I like that.
• But the fact is, everybody in the Senate is a privacy hawk because of DOJ.
• think this ought to be a priority issue for you if you're confirmed is protect doing more to protect privacy
• I'd like to know more what's going on with privacy at Doge. I've read the CMS homepage.

Keywords: Michael Falkender, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, IRS, taxpayer privacy, nomination process, committee hearing

Summary: The committee convened to discuss critical issues surrounding the nomination of Michael Falkender for the position of Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. This meeting included a series of remarks from committee members who expressed divergent views on Falkender's qualifications and the implications of his appointment. Senator Wyden voiced strong opposition, arguing that Falkender represents harmful policies expected to be perpetuated under the current administration, especially concerning taxpayer privacy and IRS tactics. Meanwhile, other members defended Falkender, noting his extensive experience, including a commitment to transparency in government operations if confirmed.

Transcript Highlights:

• I also have a background as a privacy compliance attorney. commitment.
• I represent the State Privacy Kingman.
• 00:47:42.600> compliance background as a privacy compliance background as a privacy compliance
• There is no expectation of privacy in public.
• <01:02:38.560> in There is no expectation of privacy in There is no expectation of privacy

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:

• Mandating cameras come with installation costs, data storage requirements, maintenance, and important privacy
• Requiring centers to record and store video footage of children introduces serious privacy and security

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.

Bills: HR9, HR15, HB202, HB206, HB338, HB379, HB547, HB691, HB843, HB861, HB908

Keywords: human rights, individual liberties, Magna Carta, constitutionalism, free speech, voter identification, election integrity, federal elections, public confidence, election security, SAVE America Act, Louisiana, election fraud, job advertisement, salary transparency, civil service, employment notification, applicant rights, legislative attendance, task force

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

Bills: HB2133, HB2592

Keywords: sexual material, consent, synthetic depiction, privacy, internet regulation, rights protection, artificial intelligence, government regulation, innovation, procurement, administrative burdens, 1182, all

Summary: The House AI and Innovation Committee first heard an informational presentation from Arizona Public Service (APS) on the rapid growth of data centers and AI-related electricity demand in Arizona. APS said Phoenix now ranks near the top in North America for data center development and projected its peak load could rise from 8.7 gigawatts to 12 gigawatts by 2035, with about 19 gigawatts of potential data center demand in its queue. APS emphasized three principles for serving this growth: maintaining reliability for existing customers, preventing data center costs from being shifted to residential and small business customers, and preserving capacity for other growth. APS described its proposed approach as a combination of a pending Corporation Commission rate case and bilateral contracts, including minimum bill requirements, queue management, long-term financial commitments, and direct cost assignment to data center customers. Committee members asked about rate impacts, self-generation, behind-the-meter power, seasonal load, and possible future nuclear or other generation options; APS said it is pursuing an all-of-the-above resource strategy and that the proposed data center rate increase is 45 percent, though not yet approved. The committee then considered House Bill 2133, which would require commercial entities that knowingly distribute or publish sexual material online to obtain reasonable consent and age verification, including for synthetic or AI-generated altered images, and would impose civil penalties for violations. A five-page amendment narrowed the bill by excluding internet service providers, affiliates, search engines, and cloud providers from liability for content they do not create or directly host. The sponsor said the bill is intended to protect people in adult content from exploitation and non-consensual use, including revenge porn and trafficking-related material, and to extend protections to synthetic media. Members discussed the penalty structure, with the sponsor explaining it was modeled on similar penalties in related laws and set at $10,000 per day of violation. After no public opposition was presented, the committee adopted the amendment and voted 5-0, with 2 members present, to return HB 2133 as amended with a due pass recommendation.

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

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:

• This isn't about privacy.
• And let's talk about privacy.
• Trans women deserve protection and privacy just as I deserve protection and privacy.
• All humans deserve privacy and dignity.
• If your goal is to protect privacy and dignity, change the structure of the facility so it provides privacy

Bills: SB7, SB14

Keywords: gender designation, civil penalties, private civil rights, multiple-occupancy spaces, Texas Women's Privacy Act, law enforcement, confidentiality, personnel files, employee records, misconduct

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 7, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, with the author and committee substitute explaining that the bill would require public facilities to designate multi-use private spaces by biological sex, restrict access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping quarters, shelters, and correctional facilities, and create civil penalties and enforcement mechanisms. Members asked about how the bill would apply to family violence shelters, children in mixed-family settings, venue layout, and venue for lawsuits; the author said the bill was similar to prior legislation but with stronger penalties and the 15th Court of Appeals as the exclusive intermediate appellate court for challenges, while clarifying that trial venue should generally be local except for state agencies. The committee also heard that the bill would be amended to better address local venue concerns and shelter-related issues. Invited testimony was largely in support of the bill from witnesses who described personal experiences in women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and public facilities, arguing that single-sex spaces are necessary for privacy and safety. Supporters included parents, former incarcerated women, a Republican county chair, a legal advocate, and a prison educator, who cited incidents involving transgender-identifying individuals in locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and restrooms, and said the bill would restore sex-based boundaries and protect vulnerable women and girls. One witness from Texas Values said the bill was needed despite the recently enacted Women’s Bill of Rights, and another ADF witness said the measure would protect privacy in schools and shelters. Opponents testified that the bill would harm transgender and intersex Texans, create harassment and “gender policing,” and expose cisgender women and children to invasive enforcement. Several witnesses argued there is no evidence that transgender women pose a restroom safety threat, while others said the bill would worsen mental health, employment, and school conditions for trans people and could conflict with prison standards and federal law. Family violence advocates urged changes to protect shelter operations and clarify that children can stay with parents, while other witnesses said the bill would create barriers for victims seeking help. The hearing featured extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Bills: SB7, SB14

Keywords: gender designation, civil penalties, private civil rights, multiple-occupancy spaces, Texas Women's Privacy Act, law enforcement, confidentiality, personnel files, employee records, misconduct

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs took up Senate Bill 14, which would create a confidential department file for law enforcement officers and jailers and limit public access to records involving unsubstantiated misconduct, while preserving access for hiring agencies, TCOLE, and certain criminal justice uses. TCOLE’s Gretchen Grigsby explained the current rollout of law enforcement recordkeeping reforms, including the distinction between the public personnel file and the confidential G-file, and answered questions about when TCOLE would request files during investigations. Senator Perry and other members focused on how the bill would interact with existing personnel-file rules, public transparency, and criminal discovery obligations. Public testimony was largely opposed. Critics argued the bill was drafted too broadly, could sweep in records beyond misconduct files, and would reduce transparency for the public, journalists, oversight bodies, and families seeking answers in cases such as Uvalde and jail deaths in Tarrant County. Several witnesses said the bill could allow small or single-officer agencies, including elected constables, to shield their own records, and some warned it could chill reporting and oversight. Supporters, including law enforcement representatives, said the bill would protect officers from false or unsubstantiated allegations, align agencies without civil-service protections with those that already have G-files, and preserve confidentiality for records that should not be public. Dallas County prosecutors and Harris County deputies supported the general policy but asked for clarifying amendments, especially to separate language they said could affect the Michael Morton Act and to preserve existing protections through in-camera review or protective orders. Committee members spent significant time questioning witnesses about how substantiated versus unsubstantiated allegations would be handled, whether body camera footage and case files would remain public, and how the bill would affect discovery in criminal cases. After hearing all registered witnesses, the chair closed public testimony. Senate Bill 14 was left pending, and the committee recessed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if you go right now to any app store and just type in "children's privacy" or "child protection,"
• We believe that the easiest, most accurate, and most privacy protective solution is to require app stores
• they are. ...SB187 supports families by creating a one-stop shop for parents to verify age, reduce privacy
• 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:

• This is an incredible invasion of privacy, members.
• , privacy, and innocence. must come first.
• Protecting feelings over privacy is not protecting my privacy.
• Privacy, respect, is priceless.
• I'm a real female and I want privacy in locker rooms. I want privacy.

Bills: HB7, SB 8

Keywords: abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam, prohibition, state law, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy