The DELETE Act would create a federal, centralized mechanism for individuals to request deletion of their personal information from data brokers with a single submission. It directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to write regulations, require annual registration by data brokers, collect standardized information about their data practices, and operate a public, machine-readable registry of registered brokers. The bill also requires the FTC to build and maintain a centralized deletion system that uses hashed and salted identifiers so that a person can submit one deletion request that is matched against registered data brokers’ records.
Under the bill, registered data brokers that maintain persistent identifiers would have to check the FTC’s hashed registries at least every 31 days and, when a match is found, delete the individual’s personal information and stop collecting it unless the person specifies otherwise. The bill sets deadlines for deletion, annual reporting, periodic third-party audits, and FTC guidance, and it authorizes the FTC to enforce violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act. It also includes a fee structure to fund the system, with the fee capped at 1% of the expected annual operating cost, and it preserves certain limited exceptions for research, legal compliance, and specified activities.
The bill would significantly affect federal privacy enforcement by imposing new registration, disclosure, deletion, audit, and reporting obligations on data brokers, while giving consumers a standardized opt-out and deletion process. It defines “data broker” broadly, but excludes certain entities such as consumer reporting agencies, news organizations, identity verification/fraud prevention uses, and some directory assistance and single-use disclosures. It also defines “personal information” expansively to include identifiers, geolocation, biometrics, browsing history, genetic data, device identifiers, and inferences used to profile individuals.
Overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to favorable toward consumer privacy protections, but there is no committee transcript or vote history provided to show debate or support/opposition. Because the bill was only referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and has no recorded votes in the supplied materials, there is no evidence here of formal legislative momentum or organized opposition in the record provided.
The main points of contention likely concern implementation burden, data security, and the scope of the FTC’s new role. The bill requires data brokers to share registration information and participate in a centralized matching system, which could raise concerns about compliance costs, operational complexity, and the handling of sensitive identifiers even in hashed form. The bill also expressly limits disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information, and it allows the FTC to withhold public release of registry information if it determines publication would not serve public safety or welfare.
The bill would add a new federal privacy framework governing data brokers, requiring FTC rulemaking, broker registration, public disclosure of broker information, and a centralized deletion-request system. It would create enforceable duties for registered data brokers to process deletion requests, stop future collection in many cases, submit annual reports, undergo periodic independent audits, and pay a subscription fee to support the system. It would also preempt only inconsistent state privacy laws, while preserving stronger state protections, and it would amend the practical enforcement landscape by treating violations as FTC Act unfair or deceptive practices.
The supplied record shows no committee transcript and no votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is framed as a consumer privacy and anti-tracking proposal, suggesting a generally pro-privacy purpose, but the available materials do not show whether lawmakers or stakeholders supported or opposed it. The absence of recorded action beyond referral indicates the bill was at an early stage in the process.
Likely areas of contention include whether a centralized deletion registry is secure enough to handle sensitive identifiers, whether the FTC can practically administer and enforce the system, and whether the compliance obligations on data brokers are too burdensome. Data brokers may object to the annual registration, public disclosure, audit, and fee requirements, while privacy advocates would likely favor the single-request deletion model. Another possible dispute is federal preemption: the bill preempts only inconsistent state privacy laws, but states with broader privacy regimes may still seek to preserve or expand their own protections.