Stock Groups

Bipartisan privacy proposal is ‘unworkable’ Chamber of Commerce says


On April 21, 2021, signage is visible on the Chamber Of Commerce Building located in Manhattan, New York City.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

According to major business groups, the bipartisan privacy proposal which has rekindled a discussion about federal protections of internet users’ is “unworkable.”

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “the American Data Privacy and Protection Act in its current form is inapplicable and should be rejected.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a draft of a letter to the congressional leaders in the matter. A copy was obtained Thursday by CNBC. Although a representative of the Chamber said it was currently working on a joint letter, he did not have any further comments.

Although the draft letter could change, it is a sign that corporations are looking to exert their influence in the new privacy negotiations. Although lawmakers have been stuck for years on important questions regarding privacy protections, Friday’s new proposal attempts to put a needle in the haystack.

It would provide consumers with more privacy and control online, and companies will be required to limit the information they have on their users.

The Chamber is not happy with the way the proposal addresses those two elements: the preemption of laws by the state and the rights of individuals to sue for violations.

ADPPA is a discussion draftHouse Energy and Commerce leaders Reps. Frank Pallone and Cathy McMorris Rodgers respectively, and Senator Rodger Wicker (R.Miss.) each released a joint statement. This unique approach to both issues is taken by the Ranking Member of Commerce Committee. This is the proposalIt would override certain laws in the state, but leave others enforceable. This includes Illinois’ biometric privacy act, and other state laws such as general consumer protection statutes, laws regarding cyberstalking, or cyberbullying.

The Chamber voiced concern about those carveouts.

According to the group, “A national privacy legislation should be a standard for all states but it’s preemption language makes fifteen other state laws exempted including California and Illinois.” “This legislation would establish a new national set of privacy laws.”

A private right to action is also included in the discussion draft. This allows people who feel their rights have been violated to sue corporations for this alleged violation. While it’s something Democrats support and Republicans oppose, Wicker began to openly discuss the issue in previous hearings. However, the private right would not become effective until four years after it was enacted.

“Encourage” abusive class action lawsuits against legitimate businesses, according to the Chamber in a draft letter. These would be made more severe by ADPPA’s many subjective standards, which would cause massive litigation and costs. The bill would also grant fees to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the Chair of Senate Commerce Committee, was not included in that proposal. She released her privacy proposal with other Senate Democrats. Cantwell, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, stated, “To give American consumers meaningful privacy protection, we need strong federal laws that are not riddled by enforcement loopholes.” The consumer deserves to be able to defend their rights from the first day, and not after four years.

In an earlier request to Congress, the Chamber urged Congress to adopt a federal privacy legislation to stop a patchwork effect of state laws. It said that this bill does not suit.

“Unfortunately the ADPPA was published less than 2 months prior to the August recess. We believe that a bill so complex, novel and affecting nearly all industries, including the retail and financial services sectors, should not have been passed in the final six months.Th Congress,” the group wrote. The group stated that advocates for national data privacy legislation and representatives from the private sector should give meaningful input.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: The changing face of privacy in a pandemic