Tennessee House Bill HB1132

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/4/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 10; Title 29; Title 39; Title 47 and Title 48, relative to personal information.

Summary

HB1132 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s personal information law by extending a statutory deadline from 45 days to 50 days in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 47-18-3304(b)(2). Based on the cited code section, the bill appears to relate to procedures involving the handling, response, or disclosure of personal information, though the bill text itself only changes the number of days and does not add new substantive requirements. The measure is set to take effect on July 1, 2025. It amends a provision within Title 47, which governs commerce and trade, and may affect entities subject to Tennessee’s personal information rules, including businesses or other covered organizations that must comply with statutory deadlines. The bill does not alter the underlying framework of the law, only the timing requirement in one subsection.

Impact

HB1132 would amend Tennessee’s consumer/privacy-related statutory timeline by giving covered parties five additional days to act under Section 47-18-3304(b)(2), changing the deadline from 45 days to 50 days. The bill does not appear to create a new program or expand regulatory scope; instead, it adjusts an existing compliance deadline in the state’s personal information laws, affecting any entities governed by that section.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the supplied materials. On its face, the bill is a technical, limited-scope amendment, which often draws little controversy because it changes timing rather than policy substance. The available record suggests a neutral or procedural posture rather than a highly contested measure.

Contention

Because there are no transcripts or votes included, no specific points of contention can be identified from the record provided. If any concerns were raised, they would most likely center on whether extending the deadline from 45 to 50 days gives regulated entities more administrative flexibility or, conversely, delays protections or responses tied to personal information handling. No sponsor, opponent, or stakeholder positions are documented in the materials supplied.