New York City-based non-profit The Markup published the findings of its investigation into the role of some of the biggest tech companies in the world, collectively known as Big Tech, in influencing lawmakers across states on writing and implementing privacy laws. Here’s everything you need to know.
Big Tech would seemingly have you believe they are all for enacting strong privacy legislation but may play a dampener behind closed doors. According to a report by The Markup, the likes of Amazon, Apple, Facebook (now Meta), Google, and Microsoft are actively funding lobbyists to make sure privacy laws don’t see the light of the day, or at the very least, be presented in a weakened form.
Cumulatively, the five companies, featuring among the top ten most prominent companies globally by market capitalization, have at least 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms across 31 states in the U.S. on their payroll. The Markup noted that the number is likely higher.
The Markup only analyzed 31 states that are bringing their privacy laws along the lines of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), both of which are to be enforced in 2023.
Across all states, Big Tech is funding TechNet, the State Privacy and Security Coalition, and the Internet Association to kill proposals for privacy laws or make them rudderless. But this well-funded and well-organized operation may not be apparent to a casual observer at first glance.
For instance, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft collectively registered 23 active lobbyists in Utah during the state’s 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions. Of the 23, 13 had never previously registered to work in Utah. Many of the 445 lobbyists also registered for the first time, only in the weeks preceding the introduction of a privacy bill or after it.
Another example The Markup provided was that Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft registered 15 lobbyists in Colorado when the state was heading towards enacting the Colorado Privacy Act last year.
But more importantly, the draft of the bill introduced in Utah was provided by the lobbyists of tech companies. Needless to say, the language used in the privacy bill draft is favorable to tech companies.
This charade served as a blueprint for tech lobbyists who employed a similar strategy across Virginia (an Amazon lobbyist wrote the first draft of VCDPA), Washington, and Minnesota. The Markup analyzed state legislative records and found that TechNet representatives alone have testified or supplied written comments for at least ten states’ privacy bills since 2021.
While TechNet reps have testified/drafted for more than any other state, State Privacy and Security Coalition representatives and the Internet Association are campaigning in other states to bring similar Big Tech-friendly privacy legislation.
See More: Why Security Does Not Equal Privacy
“The secretive nature of lobbying work, combined with many states’ weak transparency laws, make it impossible to quantify how Big Tech’s lobbying blitz has shaped legislation. But privacy advocates say the sheer numbers are enough in some cases to overwhelm lawmakers,†noted The Markup.
Reportedly, Washington D.C-based think tank and advocacy group Future of Privacy Forum, which was consulted to pen neutral answers to privacy-related questions, is funded by Big Tech. A push for privacy laws for Vermont based on the Virginia/Washington model instead of the California model is also evident.
In his letterOpens a new window to the Vermont attorney general TJ Donovan, Anton van Seventer, technology and data privacy associate at DLA Piper, suggested changes that “would focus the law’s application on impact to the consumer, rather than the Washington law’s emphasis on whether biometric information is being used for a marketing purpose.†DLA Piper is a law firm with the State Privacy and Security Coalition, which wrote to the Vermont attorney general on December 20, 2021.
Christopher Gilrein, executive director for Northeast at TechNet, wrote to attorney general Donovan in November 2021 about “vague and ever-changing requirements†under California’s privacy law.
“The California process left significant details and crucial definitions to be determined through subsequent rulemaking procedures and additional legislation. More recent experiences in states like Virginia show the value of clearly outlining what lawmakers determine to be riskier practices and the necessary compliance procedures those practices require,†Gilrein wroteOpens a new window .
Microsoft left the State Privacy and Security Coalition, while Apple announced in April 2022 that it would leave as well. Nevertheless, the extent to which tech companies, through lobbyists, have influenced lawmakers remains unknown.
Maureen Mahoney, a former senior policy analyst for Consumer Reports, told The Markup, “It’s just a numbers game. If you have one or two advocates that are saying, ‘I want a bunch of changes to these bills to push back against industry,’ but you’ve got 20 lobbyists telling you they’re going to kill your bill unless you take this edit, legislators want their bills to move.â€
Let us know if you enjoyed reading this news on LinkedInOpens a new window , TwitterOpens a new window , or FacebookOpens a new window . We would love to hear from you!