April 2021 – Florida Justice Reform Institute

Lawmakers weigh changes in program for injured infants

April 20, 2021/in Florida Politics

April 20, 2021

The proposals deal with the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association.

As the 2021 legislative session nears the end, the Florida House and Senate are tackling medical malpractice, with lawmakers moving forward with bills that would change a longstanding no-fault insurance program for infants with neurological injuries.

The proposals deal with the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, widely known as NICA, that was set up in the 1980s to pay for care of children born with brain or spinal-cord injuries. The program has drawn heavy attention recently because of a series of stories in the Miami Herald.

The House and Senate bills have differences, but they both contain provisions that representatives of NICA and the insurance industry say are problematic.

The House Judiciary Committee on Monday put an amendment on its bill (HB 1165) that would require the state Agency for Health Care Administration to develop policies making clear that NICA is a third party responsible for payment of services and that Medicaid is the payer of last resort. The change would apply retroactively and direct the agency to determine how much money Medicaid could recoup from NICA.

Steve Ecenia, general counsel for NICA, said the retroactive application would be a problem because it could affect a lawsuit pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“If the Legislature wants to make a decision and treat NICA differently prospectively, that’s your prerogative to do. I would just plead with you not to take action that could potentially cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the NiCA program, potentially put it in financial jeopardy and really derail where we are trying to go,” Ecenia said.

The House bill would raise the payment from $100,000 to $250,000 for parents or legal guardians of infants who sustained birth-related neurological injuries. That would apply to petitions of claims filed since the beginning of this year. The bill would raise the death benefit for an infant who suffered a neurological injury from $10,000 to $50,000.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, meanwhile, approved a bill (SB 1786) on Monday that also contains a provision about Medicaid third-party liability, though it is not identical to the House version.

But the Senate bill also would eliminate NICA effective Dec. 31, 2026, unless the Legislature passes a law to re-enact the program. That move — known as a “sunset” — drew concerns from the insurance industry.

“Those of you who have been around a few years know that tort reform is extremely, extremely difficult. If you put the termination provision in, the ability to get it back will be World War III … Once that sunset sets in, it’s armageddon.” said lobbyist Mark Delegal, whose clients include The Doctors Company, which provides medical-malpractice coverage for physicians.

NICA was created by lawmakers in 1988 as a no-fault system to pay for the care of children so long as the physicians participate in NICA and pay yearly assessments. Participating physicians are required to pay $5,000 each year for coverage, and all licensed Florida physicians pay a mandatory fee of $250, regardless of specialty.

Hospitals pay $50 for each live birth during the previous calendar year. In 2019, NICA collected $26,989,960 in hospital and physician assessments; in 2020, NICA collected $27 million, according to a legislative staff analysis.

Another provision in the Senate bill that Delegal and William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, oppose would say it is not the intent to “shield physicians who engage in willful misconduct, gross negligence, or recklessness or to preclude individuals from filing legitimate claims of medical malpractice against such physicians.”

Delegal said that proposed change is a “clear shift” in policy and said NICA would not survive because it would encourage litigation.

Like the House bill, the Senate version would increase the death benefit to $50,000 and would up the parent or guardian award to $250,000 for claims filed after Jan 1. But the Senate bill would direct NICA to make retroactive payments to parents or guardians who received awards before this year.

NICA Executive Director Kenny Shipley told members of the House Judiciary Committee that there’s “another side to this story than what you saw come out of the Miami Herald.”

_____

Republished with permission from The News Service of Florida.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/422022-lawmakers-weight-changes-in-program-for-injured-infants/

Have Privacy Advocates Found A New Path Forward in Red States?

April 15, 2021/in JD Supra

April 15, 2021

Have Privacy Advocates Found A New Path Forward in Red States?

WRITTEN BY:
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
Alfred Saikali

Today, the Florida House of Representatives Commerce Committee voted unanimously to allow HB 969, which would be the most aggressive privacy law in the country, to move forward for a full House floor vote. This post explains what happened, what will happen next, and some of the unique political forces and considerations behind HB 969.

The Current Version of HB 969

HB 969 is similar to the CCPA in many of its requirements (though the scope is now more limited). But the bill departs from the CCPA in two important ways. First, HB 969 creates a private right of action for data breaches of any personal information, while the CCPA’s private right of action is limited to sensitive personal information and requires an opportunity to cure. Second, HB 969 creates a private right of action for a company’s failure to comply with a verifiable consumer request to delete, correct, or stop selling personal information, and it would provide for attorney’s fees (only to the plaintiff). The CCPA has no private right of action for violation of the privacy provisions of that law. In other words, California’s privacy law is more business-friendly than Florida’s.

Today’s Developments and Next Steps

Today, the House Commerce Committee voted unanimously to move HB 969 favorably out of committee. Next, the bill moves to the House floor for consideration and a vote by the full House. But the 22-0 vote doesn’t reflect the level of concern expressed by the Commerce Committee members during today’s hearing.

I was fortunate enough to testify today. (Go to the 3 hour and 22-minute mark.) One thing I realized from being in the room is that Republicans understand the problems with HB 969’s private right of action and they’re very concerned about it. Indeed, most committee members said they would not support the bill in its current form. But those representatives have their hands tied for now because the House Speaker wants to punish Big Tech and sees an aggressive privacy bill as one way to do that. As a general rule, legislators who cross a House Speaker of their own party risk a big hit to campaign funding.

This strange dynamic of Republicans wanting to oppose the bill but not formally doing so seemed further evident when Committee Chair Ingoglia asked William Large (the Florida Justice Reform Institute), an opponent of the privacy bill, whether he would support the bill if the private right of action were removed. Large said he probably would. The exchange felt like a question and answer that was meant for others inside and outside the Committee’s chambers. Why would Representative Ingoglia ask the question when he knew there was no chance of that change occurring today? I would not be surprised if he was astutely trying to send a message to Representative McFarland and the House Speaker that there’s a way to pass a privacy bill without upsetting the Republicans’ longstanding and loyal corporate base.

In any event, it would be fair to conclude based on today’s discussion that if the private right of action is not removed or significantly dialed back, HB 969 will not pass the House. As a result, I expect we will see a dialed back or removed private right of action in the version of HB 969 considered by the House floor. (My money is on a dialed-back version of the private right of action because the House Speaker wants to punish Big Tech and thinks a private right of action in this bill will allow for that.)

Regardless of what the House passes, the Senate’s version does not include a private right of action. So the language of a final privacy law will depend on who wants their version more – the House Speaker or the Senate President.

TAKEAWAY — businesses that oppose HB 969 would be well-served to contact the House Speaker, express concern about the private right of action, and encourage the Senate President to stand by any version passed by the Senate.

It’s possible that nothing comes of all this. If there is no resolution on a final law before April 30th, when the Florida legislative session concludes, the clock runs out. I don’t believe this is a highly likely outcome, but it’s definitely possible given the differences between the House and Senate versions.

Have Privacy Advocates Found Their Model for Privacy Laws in “Red States”?

Stepping back and looking at the big picture, is it possible that privacy advocates have found their model for getting a privacy bill (even one with a private right of action) passed in red states? To date, privacy advocates have had trouble garnering Republican support for privacy laws, especially those with private rights of action. Here, however, proponents of HB 969 have successfully persuaded Republican politicians at all levels (who are usually pro-business) that these laws can be used to attack a new enemy – big tech. It will be interesting to see whether this model will be replicated in other states. If this theory is correct, it will mean a significant unexpected consequence of Twitter’s Trump ban and a perceived liberal bias on other social media platforms. But is this a smart long-term play for Republicans? It’s only a matter of time before conservatives launch their own social media platforms and these rules will apply to those companies, too. Who will be better prepared to defend the private rights of action and enforcement actions – big tech companies that have had over a decade head start, or new social media upstarts?

Representative McFarland

I continue to believe that Representative Fiona McFarland is one of the most talented and promising politicians in the State of Florida. She is sharp, measured in her comments, understands how to leverage her relationships with those “across the aisle”, has a strong work ethic, she’s modest, relatable, and is extremely well-liked by her colleagues. You also have to appreciate how she has carved out a niche in technology (she notched wins not just for her privacy bill but for her autonomous vehicle bill today, too). All of this is a recipe for long-term success.

I predict in the next ten years we’re going to see Representative McFarland do BIG things in Florida politics, and I want to be able to say “I told you so!”

TAKEAWAY — if I were Tesla, Apple, Google, or one of the other big tech companies, I’d want to develop strong relationships with Representative McFarland and her staff to shape the future of technology law in Florida. I’d also want to invest in creating a long-term dialogue that supports McFarland and her staff in maintaining awareness of trends and developments in technology.

Who is Propel?

The mysterious advocacy group, Propel, was the only organization to publicly support the Florida privacy law today. No representative from the organization was present (or has ever been present) at a legislative hearing to publicly express support for the law. My guess is that it’s a privacy advocacy organization, a specific individual with a lot of money trying to shape Florida law (a la California), the plaintiff’s bar, or a combination.

Most Random Exchange of Any Privacy Hearing . . . Probably Ever

Finally, my award for strangest exchange during a hearing on a privacy bill goes to this one today between Representative Geller and Committee Chair:

Geller to McFarland – So would this prohibit our DNA from being shared with aliens who want to use it to clone us?

Chair Ingoglia – I’m sensing a wet noodle coming out soon.

I could go in so many directions with that exchange, but it was funny, and it was generally refreshing to watch the bipartisan banter throughout the hearing between Representative Geller, the Chair, and their colleagues.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/have-privacy-advocates-found-a-new-path-5037287/

Despite business pushback, House data privacy bill gets panel approval

April 14, 2021/in Florida Politics

Scott Powers – April 14, 2021

‘We need to set some basic levels of expectations of privacy.’

Businesses feel the financial burden for protecting consumers’ data. Meanwhile consumer advocates argue customers would be shocked to know what information businesses have on them.

That was the crux Wednesday of public discussion and debate over Republican Rep. Fiona McFarland‘s consumer data privacy bill (HB 969) in the House Commerce Committee.

Business interests united in opposition, saying the measure would create untold operational and legal expenses. McFarland, of Sarasota, and others, contended businesses just don’t want to be forced to disclose what data they have on their customers.

Companies are collecting, compiling, selling, and sharing consumers’ personal information on everything from biometrics to DNA, to product preferences and buying histories, she warned. Some of the data might be gathered through surreptitious means, she warned.

“If the government had a fraction of the information that private companies have about us, and our thoughts, and our feelings, we would run for the hills screaming,” McFarland said. “And I think we’ve just become so enamored by the convenience that we’ve traded our privacy for that.”

The Commerce Committee concurred Wednesday, approving her measure unanimously, and sending it to the House floor.

The bill would give consumers the right to find out what personal information a company has on them, how the company got it, and what the company does with it. It gives consumers rights to ask that data be deleted or corrected, and to opt-out of having their personal data sold to or shared with other companies. It gives the Attorney General ability to go after companies for civil penalties for violations, perhaps the most alarming provision to business interests.

“Without this bill, there is no way a customer can know what information a company has about them, and how they got it,” McFarland said.

Wednesday’s approval came after McFarland offered a strike-all amendment she said represents efforts to address a number of business concerns. Among other things, the amendment raises the ceiling of minimum size qualifications on companies before being covered under the law. It also delayed implementation until July 2022, to give businesses time to adjust.

“We have taken extreme care to understand any unintended consequences to businesses,” she said.

But that wasn’t enough, based on the unanimity of opposition Florida’s business community offered Wednesday.

Most frequently, opponents warned that the bill’s private right of action provision would open Florida businesses to a whole new level of lawsuits, for consumers’ claims of damages and infringements caused by information collection, use, and sale. California, which has a weaker law than McFarland’s proposal, already has seen 76 class-action lawsuits filed.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said the bill opens up five new areas of consumer liability concerns for businesses, regarding potential data breeches, claims that a company failed to delete data, claims a company failed to correct data, the sale of data to other companies, and the sharing of data with other companies.

“All of those could lead to rights of action,” Large said.

There also was a concern about businesses having to set up massive compliance systems to respond to consumers’ demands for personal information.

Brewster Bevis of Associated Industries of Florida said a Florida TaxWatch report showed the bill could cost Florida businesses $36 billion.

“This is a very costly bill to Florida businesses,” Bevis said.

McFarland called the estimated costs “exaggerated” and dismissed some of the criticism as “knee-jerk.”

The boom in collection and dissemination of consumers’ personal data, much of it developed through e-commerce, has gotten out of hand, to the point where most consumers would be shocked to know what companies know about them, and how they learned it, she argued.

“I had one CEO actually tell me, he said, ‘Fiona, you simply must give me a carve-out, me and my business a carve-out, because if I had to tell my customers what information I had about them, they would be so creeped out they would all leave me tomorrow,’” she said.

And there are risks to consumers’ because of that, particularly through data hacking breaches that have become too commonplace, she argued.

“We need to set some basic levels of expectations of privacy. Perhaps it’s innocuous that someone knows what color suits I buy, but in the past, in order to get that information, you would either have to follow me to the mall or look inside my closet. Which I think before we were lulled into complacency with the convenience of e-commerce, that would have completely creeped us out,” she said.

The Senate companion is SB 1734 from Sen. Jennifer Bradley of Orange Park.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/420170-despite-business-pushback-house-data-privacy-bill-gets-panel-approval/

Cy Pres Bill Advances in House; Its Fate is Uncertain in the Upper Chamber

April 13, 2021/in Florida Bar News

CY PRES BILL ADVANCES IN HOUSE; ITS FATE IS UNCERTAIN IN THE UPPER CHAMBER

Apr 13, 2021 By Gary Blankenship Senior Editor

Rep. Anna Eskamani

A bill to adopt a civil cy pres doctrine in Florida statutes has passed its second House committee after a spirited debate over its necessity.

The House Public Integrity and Elections Subcommittee approved HB 409, by Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, 13-2 on April 9.

“My concern with the bill is that we’re creating a perverse incentive for attorneys to create a larger class of plaintiffs [in a class action suit] knowing in advance they won’t be able to find them just so the attorney can get a bigger settlement and the attorney can get more money,” said Rep. Spencer Roach, R-North Ft. Myers.

“There is actually no evidence that the cy pres doctrine in common law has led to accretion of more class action lawsuits,” Eskamani replied.

She said the bill would put the cy pres doctrine, which already exists in the probate code and common law, in the civil law that would allow unclaimed funds to be distributed to legal aid agencies providing services related to the subject of the suit.

Eskamani, Florida Bar Foundation President Donny MacKenzie, and William Large, of the Florida Justice Reform Institute and who opposed the bill, agreed the bill would almost exclusively apply to class action suits where class members cannot be located to participate in an award.

Plaintiff and defense attorneys and the judge would have to agree on how the unclaimed funds could be used, Eskamani said, noting about 25 other states have a similar civil cy pres doctrine.

Large argued that knowing unclaimed funds would go to charitable uses — and even potentially the judge’s law school — could unconsciously affect judges’ decisions on granting class action status and in handling the case. He conceded, though, he has not found any evidence that is a problem.

“Intuitively, I believe that’s the case and I believe that is what happened,” Large said.

He also said in many cases plaintiff attorneys are only interested in getting as large a class as possible and are ready to settle when they get a sufficient fee, regardless of whether the award can be effectively distributed to class members.

Large said the purpose of litigation is for an injured plaintiff to be made whole while the civil cy pres doctrine brings in a third party that could benefit from the suit.

“That’s not fair. The folks that deserve to be compensated are the members of the class,” he said. “The whole point of our civil justice system is there is a case in controversy and the plaintiff should be made whole, that’s who the party dollars should be going to. It shouldn’t be going to the state, it shouldn’t be going to a charity.”

MacKenzie said the doctrine of cy pres has been around for 800 years and some judges already use it in Florida cases. But putting it in law would make more judges and lawyers aware of it and willing to use it in cases.

He also said distributions have to be accepted by both parties and the judge, and an early distribution agreement can avoid problems and potentially more litigation over residual awards at the end of the case.

“We are simply telling lawyers and judges in Florida this is a tool in your toolbox,” MacKenzie said. “And it’s better to agree on the front end than fight at the back end….

“That doesn’t violate the Constitution, that doesn’t violate the rules of procedure, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the lawsuit.”

“This provides an option and an opportunity to provide funding to support civil legal services to the poor without those funds having to come from state coffers,” said Rep. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando, whose husband, retired Fifth District Court of Appeal Judge Emerson Thompson, is a former Foundation president.

“Our motivation about this bill was very much grounded in working closely with legal aid organizations over this past year and realizing the lack of support for civil legal aid, realizing how overworked and underfunded they are,” Eskamani said. “This is not only common law, this is common practice in courts around America and states across this great country.”

HB 409 next goes to Judiciary Committee. SB 1270, by Sen. Shevrin Jones, D-Miami Gardens, the upper chamber’s counterpart, has not been heard in committee, making it unlikely any bill will pass the Legislature this year. But success in House committees or the entire House could improve chances for passage next year.

https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/cy-pres-bill-advances-in-house-its-fate-is-uncertain-in-the-upper-chamber/

Dialed-back Internet Privacy Protection Act heads to Senate floor

April 6, 2021/in Florida Politics

Renzo Downey – April 6, 2021

Changes made Tuesday lost the bill support from Democrats.

A less onerous version of legislation protecting internet users’ data privacy is on its way to the Senate floor.

The measure (SB 1734), carried by Fleming Island Republican Sen. Jennifer Bradley, would give consumers the right to control how their personal online data is shared and sold. That data helps businesses know more about individual consumers and helps make things like targeted ads possible.

Bradley reworked the bill, titled the Florida Privacy Protection Act, with amendments adopted Tuesday to shrink the scope of the planned legislation that has been identified as a priority of Gov. Ron DeSantis

“The internet of today is a one-way street where the most intimate details of a consumer’s life, usually unbeknownst to the consumer, are monitored and sold to the highest bidder,” Bradley said. “The financial success of these companies who market our private lives are built on the consumers’ lack of knowledge and lack of consent to this process.”

With the latest changes, the proposal would only apply to businesses that annually buy, sell or share the personal info from 100,000 or more users or that generate at least 50% of its global annual revenue from selling or sharing personal information about consumers. Businesses that operate within federal industry requirements, such as banking and health care, would be exempt.

Bradley also settled on July 1, 2022 as the effective date for the proposal’s provisions.

As with the original bill language, adult consumers could opt out to having their data sold, while minors would have to opt in. Users could also opt out of targeted advertising.

It would require businesses, if asked, to share what info they have, how they got it, and how they use it.

Bradley’s amendment also eliminated a provision that would have let private individuals file lawsuits for violations to the state law. Instead, the onus would now fall on the Attorney General’s office.

That fixed concerns from legal groups, including Florida Justice Reform Institute and its President, William Large, who feared the bill’s broad language on personal information could lead to potential class action lawsuits. However, the reworked language drew opposition from Democrats on the panel.

The original Senate bill and the House version (HB 969), carried by Sarasota Republican Rep. Fiona McFarland, drew comparisons to California’s internet privacy law. That state’s data privacy provisions cost businesses $55 billion, according to one estimate. But Bradley said the new version would touch far fewer companies.

St. Petersburg Republican Sen. Jeff Brandes still had concerns about the legislation’s cost on businesses. And with the new thresholds for the bills to kick in, he feared some companies might intentionally remain within those boundaries to avoid regulation.

He feared the complex amendment filed the day before the committee was problematic for the panel to approve.

“For a state that values certainty in business … this bill is, to me, full of uncertainty, because all 20 of us, if cornered, would provide you radically different answers of what this bill does,” Brandes said.

However, Bradley defended the changes.

“The only certainty in this area is we have businesses who are collecting unknown amounts of information about Florida consumers,” she said. “They are selling it and they are monetizing it, and that is for certain, and I don’t share the confidence that the federal government is going to step in in a timely manner and shore up the protections for Floridians.”

The bill would add biometric data to the list of protected information. That builds off of Sprowls’ bill, which DeSantis signed into law last year, making Florida the first state to guarantee DNA privacy for customers’ life, disability, and long-term care insurance.

McFarland’s bill awaits a hearing in its final committee, the House Commerce Committee.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/417696-dialed-back-internet-privacy-protection-act-heads-to-senate-floor/

Who is lobbying to change Florida’s privacy laws? That’s private

April 1, 2021/in Politico

The Florida Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla., is pictured. | Phil Sears/AP Photo

Who is lobbying to change Florida’s privacy laws? That’s private
By MATT DIXON – 04/01/2021 06:46 PM EDT

TALLAHASSEE — A mysterious group is the driving lobbying force behind sweeping legislation that would beef up Florida’s data privacy laws. It has hired a Tallahassee-based lobbying team and spent $300,000 in political contributions, but almost no one — including the sponsors of the bills — has any idea who is behind the group.

The organization, Propel Florida, is a nonprofit that is not required to disclose its donors, lists a UPS box in Lithia as its only address and was incorporated last April. But over the first half of the 2021 legislative session, the group has flexed its political muscle. It’s so far steamrolling the state’s powerful business lobby, which almost universally opposes the legislation because it would allow consumers to sue companies over data-privacy violations, a provision supporters say is a needed enforcement mechanism to protect consumer rights.

The organization, whose existence POLITICO first reported in December, has hired well-known Tallahassee-based lobbyists who are actively meeting with lawmakers. The bills (FL HB969 (21R)/ FL SB1734 (21R)) ) would give consumers more access to data collected by companies and allow them to opt-out of the sale of that data. In early committee stops, the proposals have gotten overwhelming support in committee stops, but neither sponsor of the bills introduced in February says they know the true identity of the organization that has spurred a lobbying push to pass legislation they are sponsoring.

“I am aware of a group identified as Propel Florida, and have met with their lobbyists as well as many other lobbyists across the state on my data privacy bill,” state Sen. Jennifer Bradley, a Fleming Island Republican sponsoring the Senate version of the bill, said in an interview. “I don’t have any knowledge about the specifics of the group.”

Bradley said it does not concern her that a group she knows nothing about is a main lobbying force behind a bill she is sponsoring because “I support the policy.”

House sponsor, state Rep. Fiona McFarland (R-Sarasota), is also in the dark. She said she has met with lobbyist Derek Whitis, a Tallahassee-based contract lobbyist hired by Propel Florida, to discuss the bill, but has no idea who the organization is or who is funding its efforts.

“I have worked with lots of companies and industries on this bill,” she said in an interview. “Propel Florida was introduced to me through their lobbyists as a proponent of data privacy.”

In a text message, Whitis said Propel Florida is a “social advocacy group looking to support the data privacy protection legislation.” He did not respond to follow up questions about who is behind the group. The group is not violating any state laws, which allow organizations and nonprofits to lobby the Legislature without identifying donors.

Both Bradley and McFarland said they have spoken with dozens of lobbyists about the bill when asked about Propel Florida, but among those lobbying on the bill, an overwhelming majority are in opposition. Opponents include some of the biggest business groups in the state including the National Federation of Independent Businesses and Associated Industries of Florida. Propel Florida is the only outside group that expressed support in each of the bill’s three committees, which it has passed with just one “no” vote among the three. California-based software and cloud company Oracle also expressed support in its first House committee stop. Oracle is among the companies that helps with privacy law compliance. Many such firms emerged after passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, a bill that resembles the Florida legislation, but differences exist.

Ken Glueck, who heads Oracle’s government affairs team, said that outside of a strong federal consumer data protection law, the company has been encouraging states to institute bills as data increasingly becomes a tool for “surveillance.”

“Let’s keep pushing the rock up the hill,” Glueck said. “We are encouraging states to go it alone, and Florida has an important economy.”

He said his company has no idea who Propel Florida is.

“We are supporting this bill out in the open under our company logo,” he said.

Florida CFO Jimmy Patronis’ office has also supported the bill in committee. Frank Collins, a spokesperson for Patronis, said the CFO is “concerned about consumer protections issues,” and that he had heard from Propel Florida, but did not return follow up questions about whether he knew who was behind the group.

Propel Florida has also hired contract lobbyists Cameron Yarbrough and Paul Hawkes, records show. Neither returned a request seeking comment.

The group has also given $300,000 in political contributions, according to campaign finance records. That includes $50,000 to both the Republican Party of Florida and the main Republican Senate campaign committee in October, and $100,000 last month to both a political committee chaired by Dave Ramba, whose lobbying firm employs Yarbrough, and a separate committee chaired by lobbyist Bill Helmich.

In December, Ramba told POLITICO that Propel Florida was led by someone named Shaun Keck, who at the time identified himself to POLITICO as Propel Florida’s director.

“The fact of the matter is Floridians can’t trust Big Tech,” Keck said in a December email. “For years, virtual platforms have been collecting personal, private information from all of us. After which they capitalize by renting and selling this private information.”

Keck did not respond to follow up questions at the time, and did not respond to several requests for comment for this story.

The bills in the House and Senate are not identical, but both have core provisions that would allow consumers the right to access personal information a business collects on them, the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal data, and allows them to request a business delete the personal data they have on them. The provisions would apply to companies that have $25 million or more in global annual revenue, annually buy data of more than 50,000 consumers for commercial purposes, or get 50 percent of their annual revenues from selling data.

The provisions specific to data-privacy are largely non-controversial. What has sparked a clash between supporters of the bill and nearly every major Florida business lobbying group is a separate provision that would allow consumers to sue over violations of the new data privacy laws, which supporters have said is a needed enforcement mechanism to give the new data privacy provisions legal teeth.

“It will be a litigation magnet,” said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which regularly spars with state trial lawyers over lawsuit reform issues.

Each violation could come with a $100 to $750 fine, and because when a large company is impacted by something like a widespread data breach, thousands of consumers could be involved, opponents like Large have argued in committee that could lead to class action lawsuits.

During a meeting of the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee last month, state Sen. Annette Taddeo (D-Miami) filed an amendment to remove the lawsuit provisions. She acknowledged the oddity of a Democrat sponsoring amendments to help the state’s generally Republican-leaning businesses lobby, but said she thought the lawsuit provisions were too large.

“If any businesses violate any provision of this bill, then they could be liable, and I believe it is too broad,” Taddeo said before her amendment was defeated.

Bradley defended the clause, but said she would work with opponents moving forward.

“This cause of action I believe is very important for enforcement … and to be able to protect our consumers’ rights,” she said. “A lot of companies that operate in this space have the economic ability of some world nations.”

“These subtle differences combine with more serious ones — like who enforces the law — to add complexity to an already confusing regulatory landscape,” Anthony Prestia, head of privacy for TerraTrue, a data privacy firm.

He said one difference in the Florida bill is that it would become effective Jan. 1, 2022, which is a much quicker timeline for companies to comply with than in other states.

“This is a full year before already-passed legislation (like California’s CPRA and Virginia’s VCDPA) come into effect, which gives companies a little time to come into compliance,” he said.

Bradley said during the Senate committee meeting she is considering moving back her bill’s effective date.

McFarland said during the last House hearing that lawsuits and legal fights are not the point, but rather it is to make sure consumer data is protected.

“In society the amount of power we have handed companies through use of our data I believe has resulted in an erosion of our right to privacy and even how we think about ownership over our own data,” she said.

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/04/01/who-is-lobbying-to-change-floridas-privacy-laws-thats-private-1371112

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links