{"id":4074,"date":"2022-09-12T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-09-12T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2022\/09\/12\/adppa-new-compromise\/"},"modified":"2022-09-12T17:00:00","modified_gmt":"2022-09-12T17:00:00","slug":"adppa-new-compromise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2022\/09\/12\/adppa-new-compromise\/","title":{"rendered":"Who could have predicted? A potential “new compromise” for ADPPA!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last updated September 15<\/em><\/p>\n

It could well be that [lobbyist Jon] Leibowitz et. al. are just posturing, and the industry plan is to demand concessions on other fronts in return for a “compromise” on preemption: add California’s privacy law to the already-long list of preemption exceptions, give the California Privacy Protection Agency the authority they need, and hangs Maine, Washington, and all the other states that also don’t want to be preempted out to dry.<\/p>\n

\u2013 me, in A “fresh wrench”, two hearings, and a busy week<\/a>, July 17<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In July, the House Energy & Commerce committee voted 53-2 to advance the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), a broad consumer privacy bill. \u00a0It’s the first time this century a consumer privacy bill has advanced from committee, and privacy and civil rights groups have justifiably lauded ADPPA’s inclusion of civil rights protections as a huge milestone. \u00a0<\/p>\n

The next step for ADPPA is a vote on the House floor. \u00a0But right before the Labor Day weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a firm statement saying that wouldn\u2019t happen unless there were changes in ADPPA.<\/p>\n

California\u2019s landmark privacy laws… \u00a0must continue to protect Californians \u2014 and states must be allowed to address rapid changes in technology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh no!<\/p>\n

Republicans have said they’re only willing to support a privacy bill if it preempts California!!<\/p>\n

And now California’s not willing to be preempted!!!<\/p>\n

Does this mean that ADPPA is “<\/strong><\/em>dead<\/strong><\/em><\/a>“?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t be silly<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The level to which Pelosi’s stance affects the ADPPA’s chances will depend on what kind of agreement can be reached, if any, to soften preemption.<\/p>\n

\u2013 Joe Duball, Pelosi opposes proposed American Data Privacy and Protection Act, seeks new preemption compromise<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course this doesn’t mean ADPPA is dead. \u00a0It’s not even news: Pelosi and California Democrats have had this position since 2019<\/a>. Legislators, staffers, lobbyists, and privacy advocates have all put a huge amount of effort into ADPPA and its predecessors over the last few years. They’re not going to give up just because the preemption issue hasn’t been resolved yet.<\/p>\n

Pelosi’s statement made it clear that discussions are continuing. \u00a0Along with statements from House Energy & Commerce Chair Frank Pallone and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (two of ADPPA’s sponsors), it’s just part of the negotiating process. \u00a0<\/p>\n

In fact, there’s already been a “new compromise” proposed on preemption. But before we get to that …<\/p>\n

Can we talk about something besides preempting California for a second?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

There\u2019s been so much focus on preemption and California that a lot of other important questions about ADPPA haven\u2019t gotten a lot of airtime, starting with one that’s top of mind for a lot of people right now. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Does ADPPA protect against post-Roe threats to privacy?<\/strong> Probably not.<\/p>\n