Transcript Highlights:

• consumer privacy.
• that are taking steps to protect that are taking steps to protect consumer<00:01:53.160> privacy
• It also imposes obligations on businesses that are all designed to protect consumer privacy.
• Either the consumer uses a privacy-protective browser with it already built in, or you download an extension
• So it takes some effort for consumers to put that into place unless they already use a privacy-protective

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.

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:

• We're here to try to protect our children from the digital version of what we already protect them from
• while trying to protect children.
• 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

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

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:

• The second is protecting affordability for existing customers.
• The second is protecting affordability for existing customers.
• It protects the children from seeing the content.
• So thank you for wanting to protect children.
• The protection of kids in the world of new technology is important.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:47:42.600> compliance background as a privacy compliance background as a privacy compliance
• ><00:47:46.760> for support heightened protections for support heightened protections for health
• <01:02:38.560> in There is no expectation of privacy in There is no expectation of privacy
• protection, etc. protection, etc.
• We need to protect people. tightened up. We need to protect people.

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:

• We have had legacy protections for child actors involved in the formal acting business.
• This is an attempt to mirror some of those protections and, again, ensure that in the cases where they
• This is an attempt to mirror some of those protections and, again, ensure that in the cases where they
• This fix protects drivers' independence by explicitly... It simply removes that ambiguity.
• This fix protects drivers' independence by explicitly preserving their right to terminate at any time

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.

Bills: SB 95, SB 268, SB 493, SB 619, SB 660, SB 922, SB 984, SB 1098, SB 1188, SB 1307, SB 1332, SB 1822

Keywords: immunization, written informed consent, civil liability, health care provider, vaccine compensation, administrative penalty, health care, licensing, complaint procedure, disciplinary action, law enforcement, conscience protection, health care services, civil remedy, health care providers, patient access, hospital safety, emergency room, bollards, traffic protection

Transcript Highlights:

• protective services or DHR in the course of their children growing up.
• I mean, the ones who are abusive, we want those children protected. Absolutely.
• And as God-fearing adults, that's our job number one: to protect those children.
• It would limit emergency protections for children. It emergency protections for children.
• But certainly I would not... ...protecting the children.

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:

• 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

Transcript Highlights:

• can protect her, somebody with a gun. can protect her, somebody with a gun.
• enforcement to provide that protection enforcement to provide that protection when<00:10:28.640>
• <01:08:34.560> in qualify for trade secret protection in qualify for trade secret protection
• I understand that we're trying to protect privacy and trade secrets.
• protect uh privacy and trade secrets. protect uh privacy and trade secrets.

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:

• Division focused on data privacy.
• Act, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, among others, as well as important use case exemptions related
• <00:23:05.280> our but do we have the means to protect our but do we have the means to protect
• <00:28:45.440> law, which is a consumer protection law, which is a consumer protection law
• country with a model that protects country with a model that protects consumers,<01:35:53.920>

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:

• And so, we are here today to try and work on getting those guardrails in place to protect women and children
• guardrails in work on getting those guardrails in place<00:03:57.080> to<00:03:57.200> protect
• place to protect um women and children. place to protect um women and children.
• protection to Minnesota investors. investors. investors.
• the consumer and protecting animal welfare.

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:

• If you do get convicted of it as a class one misdemeanor, Same protection.
• It reflects a growing trend of an invasion of privacy and our gun rights.
• Just be very clear, it's a financial privacy bill.
• Second Amendment, it's a constitutionally protected activity.
• A lifetime injunction of harassment just protects them from that.

Bills: SB1049, SB1053, SB1058, SB1093, SB1160, SB1211

Keywords: spousal maintenance, court guidelines, self-sufficiency, financial support, marriage dissolution, concealed carry, gun permits, firearms training, public safety, criminal history checks, local recognition, firearms, merchant codes, financial privacy, Second Amendment, data protection, riot, planning, racketeering, criminal conspiracy

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard and advanced several bills. SB 1160 would make it a class one misdemeanor to fly a drone within one mile of a ticketed entertainment event, with exceptions for authorized personnel or written consent; NASCAR testified in support on public safety grounds, and the bill received a due pass recommendation by a 6-1 vote. SB 1093 would expand the definition of riot to include force or threats causing property damage and add riot as a predicate offense for conspiracy and racketeering; the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice opposed it as overly broad, while the sponsor argued it would target organized, paid riot activity. The committee approved it 5-2. SB 1049 would place a finite limit on spousal maintenance awards and direct the Supreme Court to consider related guideline factors; the sponsor said it was intended to prevent open-ended maintenance, while members questioned the fairness of a four-year cap in long marriages. It passed 5-2. SB 1053 would require Arizona residents to pay 10% of the nonresident fee for concealed weapons permits, with the director able to adjust fees to keep the program revenue neutral; supporters said residents should not pay the same as nonresidents and that the bill could encourage training and background checks, while opponents argued it could reduce state revenue. It passed 6-2. The committee also approved SB 1058, which bars government entities and certain private financial actors from maintaining firearm registries or using merchant category codes to identify firearm retailers, with supporters framing it as a privacy and Second Amendment measure and opponents warning about tracking and debanking; it passed 6-2. Finally, SB 1211 would allow victims of felony aggravated harassment involving domestic violence to seek a lifetime injunction against the offender; domestic violence and victim advocacy groups supported it as closing a gap for repeat victims, and the bill passed unanimously 9-0 after discussion clarified that no amendment was offered.

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:

• Both the first protected speech.
• Anti-SLAPP Protection Act.
• Act to Wyoming Anti-Slap Protection Act to Wyoming Anti-Slap Protection<00:58:38.960> Act.
• Protection Act. That's on page one. Protection Act.
• protected by the United States. protected by the United States.

Bills: HB0103, HB0070, HB0091

Keywords: First Amendment, free speech, lawsuits, immunity, public participation, strategic lawsuits, foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws, civil actions, speech protection, legal jurisdiction, joint liability, artificial intelligence, social scoring, biometric data, privacy rights, government regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• acts, which sets age consumer protection acts, which sets age limits<00:17:52.000> and<00:17:
• So providing really critical services to protect the state's children.
• > the<01:18:24.320> state's services to protect the state's services to protect the state's
• <01:26:34.880> these how critical it is to protect these how critical it is to protect these
• <01:30:00.560> the this as much as we can to protect the this as much as we can to protect

Bills: HB0103, HB0070, HB0091

Keywords: First Amendment, free speech, lawsuits, immunity, public participation, strategic lawsuits, foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws, civil actions, speech protection, legal jurisdiction, joint liability, artificial intelligence, social scoring, biometric data, privacy rights, government regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• trying to invalidate protections trying to invalidate protections provided<00:52:14.160> under
• <00:53:14.240> and disabilities retain protections and disabilities retain protections and
• Failure to engage in the protection.
• <01:24:20.480> class, does not create a new protected class, does not create a new protected
• protect people with disabilities. protect people with disabilities. the<01:25:39.040> the

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:

• In section two, that relates to privacy protections for minor victims.
• privacy protections for minor victims. privacy protections for minor victims.
• And on the privacy side, it strengthens privacy protections for these optional driver's license and ID
• <00:37:29.280> protections<00:37:29.920> for some new privacy protections for some
• And on the privacy side, it strengthens privacy<00:37:45.760> protections<00:37:46.320> for

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:

• In the law, we specifically protected public schools and charter schools, but we did not protect private
• So this is a consumer protection bill. I like to call them constituent protection bills.
• This is SB315, which is a protection for each of our individual DNA.
• The intent of the bill is absolutely the protection of DNA data.
• I would like to make clear I am in support of genetic protection of our DNA.

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