Senate Democrats’ neural data legislation includes broader definitions than existing state measures, Davis Wright Tremaine attorneys said Wednesday.
Privacy Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching the title or clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Senate Democrats’ effort to regulate handling of neural data mirrors the state law trend seen in Colorado, California, Montana and Connecticut, Covington noted in a post Friday.
New privacy regulations took effect in Maryland and various other states on Wednesday. Read our coverage of the new requirements, including:
Montana became the third state to regulate neural data as an amendment to the state’s genetic privacy law took effect Wednesday, adding to a trend of states overseeing the neurotechnology space (see 2508180034). On the same day, amendments to Montana’s comprehensive privacy law took effect, expanding its scope and introducing more protections for children.
Even without a private right of action, a Massachusetts comprehensive privacy bill nearing a Senate floor vote could still be the strongest of about 20 states with such laws, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Deputy Director Caitriona Fitzgerald said in an interview Friday. While legislators previously cut the right for individuals to sue -- limiting enforcement authority to the Massachusetts’ attorney general -- they kept data minimization requirements like those from Maryland’s privacy law.
An Ohio law requiring websites targeting children younger than 18 to obtain parental consent before engaging in contracts with minors is not a violation of the First Amendment, said a bipartisan coalition of 31 states plus the District of Columbia in a joint amicus brief to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday. Later that day, South Carolina filed a document joining the coalition in asking the court to reverse a district court's 2024 decision to block the law (see 2402130041).
A Montana neurotechnology privacy law enacted this year “signals a shift toward integrating neural data protections within existing biological data laws,” Morrison Foerster lawyers Linda Clark, Melissa Crespo and Katherine Wang blogged Friday.
States show growing interest in privacy laws covering neural and neurotechnology data, Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) said Tuesday. Four states have enacted laws so far: Montana, California, Connecticut, and Colorado.
Businesses should map their automated decision-making technology (ADMT), review and revise privacy policies, plan for cybersecurity audits and review vendor contracts in response to California Privacy Protection Agency rules adopted July 24, some privacy law practices advised in recent client alerts. The rules are expected to be finalized without changes shortly.