A privacy bill with no private right of action passed the Florida Senate 29-11 Thursday. The Senate removed the ability for individuals to sue from HB-969 by amendment Wednesday (see 2104280054). The House must agree to the Senate’s changes before the bill can go to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). While disappointed the Senate won’t allow private suits, Sen. Gary Farmer, who reportedly was replaced Wednesday as Democratic Senate leader, said the bill is a “good start.” Voting no, Sen. Jeff Brandes (R) complained that the Senate debated the bill Wednesday for only nine minutes. "Nine minutes on what could be the largest tax increase on businesses or regulatory burden on businesses that has ever come through this chamber." It's good the Senate removed the private cause, but the measure still allows class actions, Brandes said. It will inappropriately cover some businesses, which will be caught "like dolphins in a tuna net,” he added. Sponsor Sen. Jennifer Bradley (R) downplayed the cost to businesses, saying the bill mainly requires them to add opt-out buttons to their websites. The legislature ends session Friday.

The Florida Senate removed a private right of action in the House’s privacy bill (HB-969) by adopting by voice an amendment by Sen. Jennifer Bradley (R) that effectively replaced the House bill with the Senate’s version (SB-1734). The proposed law would be enforced entirely by the Florida attorney general, Bradley said on the livestreamed Senate floor session Wednesday. Today’s internet is a “surveillance economy,” she said. "In a perfect world, the federal government would act.” The Senate teed up a vote by placing HB-969 on third reading, but senators didn’t vote before our deadline. HB-969 sponsor Rep. Fiona McFarland (D) will take "a close look" at Senate language, her aide said. Bradley’s amendment includes “changes fought for by the larger business community in Florida,” including “more favorable definitions of selling and sharing data” and removing the private right, blogged McGuireWoods Consulting.

Florida legislators teed up possible Wednesday votes on privacy, social media and pole attachment bills. The Senate placed its privacy measure (SB-1734) on Wednesday’s special order calendar. House lawmakers amended the Senate’s social media bill (SB-7072) Tuesday and placed it on third and final reading. The House revised the Senate’s bill, passed by that chamber Monday (see 2104260061), to replace the definition of social media with the one from HB-7013. The Senate’s definition was narrower, and social media companies might find loopholes, said HB-7013 sponsor Rep. Blaise Ingoglia (R) in webcast floor debate. Democrats slammed the bill. “This bill is an unconstitutional mess,” said Rep. Omari Hardy. States “have no right to wade into these waters,” he said. “This is a vindictive piece of legislation.” Rep. Anna Eskamani disagreed with treating tech companies like utilities: “We don’t have to be on these platforms.” Florida has a right to regulate monopolies to protect its citizens, responded Ingoglia. Later Tuesday, the House teed up for final reading SB-1944, passed Monday by the Senate, to give the Public Service Commission authority to regulate pole attachments

Alaska’s administration knows its comprehensive privacy bill needs “substantial additional work to find that right balance” between protecting consumers and not burdening small and medium-size businesses, said Alaska Deputy Attorney General Cori Mills at a hearing livestreamed Friday. Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) proposed the bill. House Commerce Committee co-Chair Zack Fields (D) said he hoped for enforcement changes “to make sure it has some teeth,” noting HB-159 doesn’t include a broad private right of action, and another option is to set up and fund a specialized enforcement agency. Assistant Attorney General John Haley read through the text section by section, occasionally stopping to take questions, and didn’t get all the way through before the panel moved on. Fields said the committee will pick up the reading again at its next hearing, scheduled for Monday at 7:15 p.m. EDT. A Washington state House vote wasn’t expected to have occurred Friday on the Senate’s privacy bill (SB-5062), said a House Democrats spokesperson. That legislature ends session Sunday. There's disagreement over allowing private suits in Washington and Florida (see 2104220062).

A privacy bill with a private right of action passed the Florida House 118-1 Wednesday. The Senate has SB-1734 without a private right. Rep. Ben Diamond (D) said on the floor Wednesday that he voted for HB-969 despite his concerns about allowing private lawsuits, because he understands the two chambers and governor’s office are in talks about the right approach. Diamond was confident that attorney general enforcement is enough and worried about maintaining Florida’s “reputation” as a “business-friendly state.” Rep. Anna Eskamani (D) hoped negotiations don’t lead to a weaker bill. HB-969 sponsor Rep. Fiona McFarland (R) kept supporting including the private right (see 2104200066). “Please vote to make Florida a place where Big Tech ... does not control our data and does not control our government,” McFarland said. Consumer Reports praised the House for keeping a private right but noted that HB-969 lacks a provision from the Senate bill to require companies to honor opt-out browser signals. The House bill has "strong enforcement and a comprehensive opt out," said CR Senior Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney. "But the bill should also make it easy for Floridians to opt out."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology scheduled its first virtual meeting with its Privacy Workforce Public Working Group for May 12, announced the agency last week. The group will develop a set of task, knowledge and skill statements based on NIST’s Privacy Framework and the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education's Workforce Framework to assist with workforce recruitment.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., released draft legislation Thursday to set rules on sharing sensitive data overseas to prevent foreign criminals and other bad actors from accessing it. Wyden requested comment on the Protecting Americans’ Data From Foreign Surveillance Act, which, as drafted, would direct the Commerce secretary to identify personal data categories that could harm national security if obtained by third parties. The bill establishes a private right of action for individuals physically harmed, arrested or detained in a foreign country due to illegal data export.

The U.S. Supreme Court should decline again to review when it’s OK for police to require someone to unlock an encrypted cellphone, New Jersey said Friday in docket 20-937. In Andrews v. New Jersey, a prosecutor secured a court order directing Robert Andrews, an Essex County sheriff's officer the time, to turn over passwords for two cellphones. Andrews challenged, citing Fifth Amendment protections, but the New Jersey Supreme Court said those protections don’t apply to passwords. No new circuits or state supreme courts have weighed in since October, when the high court chose not to hear a similar Pennsylvania case (see 2010050042), New Jersey told SCOTUS. "Petitioner claims a different result is nevertheless warranted, but he faces a significant threshold problem: Petitioner has not yet gone to trial, let alone been convicted and sentenced.” Future trial court proceedings “may obviate the need for review of any Fifth Amendment issues in this case,” the state said. New Jersey disagreed there's a judicial split over application of the “foregone conclusion” doctrine, which says it’s not self-incriminating to give the state information it already knows. “Petitioner alleges a split over whether a suspect could be required to verbally ‘communicate’ the ‘pure testimony’ of his device’s passcode. ... Yet in this case, Petitioner will be allowed to directly enter the passcode without divulging it.” The state Supreme Court was correct, New Jersey said. "Whenever a suspect enters his passcode, he is only confirming that he ... knows the code. If the government knows as much, that suspect has not incriminated himself and the Fifth Amendment is not offended. ... A contrary rule would elevate form over substance, allowing the State to enforce a search warrant if a device is protected by biometrics but not by a passcode. And it would offer those seeking to evade a lawful search warrant a path to do so.” The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation support SCOTUS hearing the New Jersey case (see 2101080057).

Washington state privacy and municipal broadband bills head to the House floor after getting fiscal OKs Thursday. The House Appropriations Committee voted 19-14 for the Senate’s privacy bill (SB-5062), including last week’s Judiciary Committee changes, opposed by industry (see 2104010049), to add a private right of action and sunsetting companies’ right to cure. The committee voted 21-12 for the municipal bill (SB-5383) after adopting an amendment by unanimous voice vote. Rep. Drew Hansen (D), sponsor of a House muni bill (HB-1336), said at the webcast meeting that SB-5383 sponsor Sen. Lisa Wellman (D) suggested the amendment to her bill. Rep. Matt Boehnke said he and other Republicans are mixed on the bill because it “reduces barriers to access” but may not sufficiently target unserved areas.

Washington state House appropriators were expected to vote Thursday afternoon on state privacy and municipal broadband bills. Earlier at the livestreamed hearing, the tech industry and other businesses told the Appropriations Committee that it’s too hard to comply with last week’s Judiciary Committee changes to SB-5062, which included adding a private right of action and sunsetting companies’ right to cure (see 2103260034). The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill lacks teeth to ensure compliance. Such disagreement shows the bill is “actually a good compromise,” testified Common Sense Media Director-State Advocacy Joseph Jerome. The Internet Association wants the privacy bill restored to the measure that passed the Senate, said Rose Feliciano, director-state government affairs, Northwest. She complained about “zero public input” on the Judiciary Committee’s changes, echoing comments by Washington Technology Industry Association and Association of Washington Business witnesses. Funding for attorney general enforcement of the privacy bill is “grossly inadequate to address the scope of the problem," said ACLU-Washington attorney Bill Block, citing a fiscal note saying the AG would get support for 1.2 attorneys and 3.6 full-time equivalents (FTEs). “It assumes only three full investigations and no litigation a year.” The private right is toothless because Block doubts individuals will sue if they can’t seek damages, he said. The Washington Independent Telecommunications Association will take a “leap of faith” and support SB-5383 to loosen municipal restrictions if appropriators adopted the committee amendment, said Executive Director Betty Buckley. The Washington Public Utility Districts Association also supported the bill with those changes.