Have questions about making AI—and all things tech—work for you? November 14-15, get answers from experts at NexTech, in NYC and virtually. Save 35%.
California’s hotly debated Delete Act (SB 362), if passed, could upend the ad-tech data broker market. The proposal appears to be moving quickly, coming in less than a year after the Consumer Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) went into effect in January. And, since it’s a legal matter about privacy, you can bet there are a few vague terms that are muddying the waters.
SB 362 gives people a universal delete mechanism for data collected by brokers, and passed the Assembly this week. The bill now returns to the Senate for approval and could be passed as law in a matter of days.
However, this advancement has sparked debate among both supporters and opponents over the bill’s co-author Tom Kemp, also an angel investor in a company offering data deletion services for a fee.
It’s not uncommon for legislators to rely on industry expertise when drafting laws over complex topics. An investigation by USA Today underscores this trend that over 10,000 bills introduced in U.S. statehouses were copied from bills drafted by influential groups and lobbyists. Still, legal experts and bill opponents—including the vocal ad industry which has relied on using peoples’ data to target ads—are raising questions over the motives behind the legislation. Some are pushing to pause the bill’s progress to have a more transparent discussion about the consequences.
“When California passes a law, other states pay attention. It’s important for legislators to get this bill right so that other states don’t follow a severely flawed approach,” said Dan Smith, CEO of the Computer Data Industry Association (CDIA). “[If the bill passes in its current state], you could see institutions, companies and individuals set up a cottage industry.”
Why the fracas?
According to SB 362, the residents of California can request to delete their data via a free delete button on a government website. However, the bill includes a provision that lets “authorized agents” assist individuals with their deletion requests.
But, the bill lacks a clear definition of authorized agents.
“With no guardrails,” said Smith, “any company or an individual could be an authorized agent.”
Alan Chapell, president of law firm Chapell & Associates, previously looked into companies that work on behalf of people to make data subject access requests (DSAR). He found that companies tend to overstate risks to people and do a poor job of explaining how they can help consumers.
