“Many misstate what the law requires companies to do, perhaps deliberately,” Chapell told Adweek. “[Authorized agent provision] incentivizes behaviors that don’t help consumers.”
Ok, why is this important?
While the Delete Act was introduced in April by California State Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), it has attracted media attention due to the involvement of Tom Kemp, a Silicon Valley-based entrepreneur, investor, and policy advisor who co-authored the bill.
Kemp explicitly identified himself as the bill’s co-author, discussing his role and amendments across different platforms, including in an email to Adweek.
According to his website, Kemp co-wrote the bill with Emory Roane of the non-profit organization Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and presented SB 362 to Senator Becker.
So, what’s the concern?
Kemp also serves as an angel investor in several companies, with investments ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. This includes a for-profit company called Atlas Privacy, which offers data removal services at a price of $150 annually. So far, the company has raised $375,00, according to Crunchbase.
Co-authoring a bill that stands to benefit an individual’s private business is a scenario that presents a conflict of interest, four sources told Adweek.
“Kemp says he’s deeply involved in the bill’s amendment process,” said CDIA’s Smith. “And he’s invested in a company that stands to be one of these authorized agents … potentially making a lot of money off the bill’s passage.”
In response to these concerns, Kemp said “It’s funny that [the opponents] are shouting about a conflict of interest. Their financial conflict in opposition [to mine] would be a million times more.”
Passing this bill will likely lead to more signal loss, conceivably making it more difficult for marketers to target audiences. Previously, tech lobbyists have pushed their agenda over water-downed versions of state privacy laws.
For Matthew Schwartz, policy analyst, Consumer Reports, the financial motivations of the opponents of the bill outweigh that of Kemp’s.
“I wouldn’t say it should be disqualifying that one person could gain from the bill without adding that the public would gain from deleting their data,” Schwartz said. “People in opposition also have a vested financial interest in the bill’s outcome.”
There are others who don’t see an issue with Kemp’s involvement.
“This is no different than any lobbyists that help craft the legislation that’s financially beneficial to [them],” said Jordan Fischer, partner at law firm Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete.
Where this does become a concern is when an entire business model is generated off the backs of a law, sources say.
