Fighting for You: September 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Update - Articles

Articles

26Sep

Fighting for You: September 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Update

Cool winds are blowing through DC and the state capitols, but the action in September remained hot on multiple policy fronts of interest to the insights industry. The Insights Association helped to snag wins against a tax on advertising research and a requirement for opt out preference signals, while also delving into pending legislation and new state and federal laws in data privacy, advancing legislation on artificial intelligence, new guidance for insights professionals using synthetic research subjects, and more.

Tax

A provision that would have taxed advertising, explicitly including ad measurement and effectiveness research, was stripped out of a big tax bill in Nebraska. Following the defeat of earlier bills in the legislature with the same provisions, the ad research tax was again included in an omnibus tax bill during a special session in Nebraska this summer, at the behest of the governor. The bill was eventually pared down and the ad tax was removed. The Insights Association once again opposed this legislation in concert with a larger coalition of groups.

Howard Fienberg, Senior VP for IA, commended Cornhusker state lawmakers for doing the right thing. “This tax would have increased the costs of advertising measurement and research in Nebraska and discouraged informed decision-making.”

Consumer Privacy and Data Security

A pair of new laws in Colorado build upon the Colorado Privacy Act, the comprehensive state privacy law that came into effect last summer:

  • One new law adds "enhanced protections” for when the data of a minor under age 18 “is processed and there is a heightened risk of harm to minors." It applies much more broadly than the existing Colorado Privacy Act and its regulations, and is based on Connecticut’s minors privacy law.
  • Another recent law adds coverage of biological and neural data to the Colorado Privacy Act.

Farther west, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation opposed by IA that would have required browsers and mobile operating systems to offer (and transmit) opt-out preference signals.

In the nation’s capitol, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was enacted earlier this year, effectively requiring the Chinese-owned company ByteDance to divest from the popular social media app TikTok. While not of direct impact on the insights industry, it is important to keep an eye on the law’s enactment and related federal activities as insights companies grapple with how to handle relationships with companies owned or controlled by the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

IA also looked at some other legislation in Congress, including:

  • The Designing Accounting Safeguards to Help Broaden Oversight And Regulations on Data Act (DASHBOARD Act), which would require larger data companies to disclose to users the types of data collected, how it is used, and its aggregated value. The Act would also require disclosure of that value by publicly-traded companies to investors; and
  • The Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, which would facilitate access by academics and activists to confidential, consumer, and back-end data on certain online platforms.

Finally, federal guidance for HIPAA-covered healthcare entities and business associates “when using online tracking technologies” was recently struck down by a court, and the issuing agency has given up its appeal, leaving compliance a bit murky.

Artificial Intelligence

The Insights Association Code of Standards & Ethics outlines the fundamental principles of market research practices and client and participant relations, but how can insights professionals apply it to "synthetic participants" and "synthetic sample"? The first article in the IA’s Code in Action series addresses this method and how it intersects with our industry’s ethical principles and the IA Code.

On Capitol Hill, we followed a batch of AI-related bills passed out of the House Science Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee, touching on everything from setting standards, subsidizing research and development, sponsoring scholarships and fellowships, subsidizing higher education programs, providing AI education to small businesses, requiring public awareness campaigns, restricting high-risk AI, and requiring transparency for AI-generated content.

IA also looked at the Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act, a Congressional bill that would give regulated financial services entities the opportunity to experiment with AI projects with agreed-upon regulatory oversight and minimal regulatory impediments.

For more discussion on AI, including a tag team with insights industry lawyers on legal and regulatory issues in the rapidly-expanding AI space, join the Insights Association for a one-day conference, "AI Ignite: Exploring the Technology’s Future in Insights," on October 17 at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ, just outside of New York City.

Census

The Ensuring Full Participation in the Census Act would prohibit citizenship and immigration questions in the decennial headcount. At the same time, a Constitutional amendment was proposed that would require apportionment of congressional seats to be based solely on the count of U.S. citizens (and presumably require a citizenship question on the decennial census).

Keeping Up the Fight

While the Insights Association battles on these and other public policy concerns across the United States for the insights industry, we are only as good as our members and sponsors. Your support is what makes us effective and helps us advance our industry and ultimately allow you to deliver value to your clients, customers and stakeholders.

Our team remains available to answer your questions on legislative/regulatory/legal issues, so make sure that you keep in touch.

This information is not intended and should not be construed as or substituted for legal advice. It is provided for informational purposes only. It is advisable to consult with private counsel on the precise scope and interpretation of any laws/regulation/legislation and their impact on your particular business.

About the Author

Howard Fienberg

Howard Fienberg

Based in Washington, DC, Howard is the Insights Association's lobbyist for the marketing research and data analytics industry, focusing primarily on consumer privacy and data security, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), tort reform, and the funding and integrity of the decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Howard has more than two decades of public policy experience. Before the Insights Association, he worked in Congress as senior legislative staffer for then-Representatives Christopher Cox (CA-48) and Cliff Stearns (FL-06). He also served more than four years with a science policy think tank, working to improve the understanding of scientific and social research and methodology among journalists and policymakers. Howard is also co-director of The Census Project, a 900+ member coalition in support of a fair and accurate Census and ACS. He has also served previously on the Board of Directors for the National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics and and the Association of Government Relations Professionals. Howard has an MA International Relations from the University of Essex in England and a BA Honors Political Studies from Trent University in Canada, and has obtained the Certified Association Executive (CAE), Professional Lobbying Certificate (PLC) and the Public Policy Certificate (PPC). When not running advocacy for the Insights Association, Howard enjoys hockey, NFL football, sci-fi and horror movies, playing with his dog, and spending time with family and friends.

Related

Disclosures About Generative AI Training Data Required by New California law A.B. 2013

Disclosures About Generative AI Training Data Required by New California law A.B. 2013

A new law in California requires expansive disclosures from developers of generative artificial inte...

Read More >
New California Law - the California Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act - S.B. 896

New California Law - the California Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act - S.B. 896

The California Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act (S.B. 896), a new law in the Golden State,...

Read More >
New California Law Defines Artificial Intelligence - A.B. 2885

New California Law Defines Artificial Intelligence - A.B. 2885

A new law in California sets out a definition of artificial intelligence (AI) and adds cross referen...

Read More >
California AI Transparency Act is Now Law - S.B. 942

California AI Transparency Act is Now Law - S.B. 942

A new law in California requires various embedded disclosures from generative AI developers, tools t...

Read More >
New California Law A.B. 1008 Muddies the Definition of Personal Information

New California Law A.B. 1008 Muddies the Definition of Personal Information

A new California law muddies the water for defining personal information in the California Privacy P...

Read More >
California AI Safety Bill S.B. 1047 Vetoed

California AI Safety Bill S.B. 1047 Vetoed

​​​​​​​The governor vetoed the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligenc...

Read More >
Members only Article - Please login to view