California Privacy Protection Agency Board Votes to Oppose H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy Protection Act

SACRAMENTO –The California Privacy Protection Agency Board voted unanimously today to oppose as currently drafted H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), proposed federal privacy legislation that seeks to significantly weaken Californians’ privacy protections by pre-empting the California Consumer Privacy Act and other state privacy laws.

The Board also voted to oppose any bill that similarly threatens crucial privacy protections for Californians but, via a third motion, left room for the Agency to support federal privacy legislation that provides a “true floor” that allows states to implement stronger protections.

ADPPA was advanced by the House Committee on Energy & Commerce on July 20, 2022. Governor Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta have all submitted letters critical of the broad preemption language in the bill. While ADPPA would extend privacy rights in states where they do not currently exist, most protections Californians currently enjoy under the CCPA would likely be preempted, including, notably, the CCPA’s constitutionally-protected “floor” for privacy protections, California’s ability to strengthen the law in the future, and the Agency’s ability to protect Californians’ privacy rights under the California law. Agency staff outlined the impact that the bill would have on Californians in a memo released on Tuesday.

Chairperson Jennifer Urban stated: “Californians for 50 years, at least, have enjoyed privacy rights in our Constitution and have continuously built on those.” “States need to be able to be responsive and California, in particular...needs to be aware of its protections via the floor, and we should take every step we can to make sure that Californians don't lose that protection.”

Board Member Chris Thompson stated: “It appears to me that there is a false choice in this bill that....the strong rights of Californians (and others) have to be taken away in order to provide weaker rights federally.” “There is an alternative. We can have both. We can have a federal floor that enables states to continue to innovate in this policy area.” “[W]e need to be able to continue to act to protect Californians’ rights and to drive forward and adapt to other technological standards of technological innovation.”

Board Member Angela Sierra stated: “States are in the best position to really react and address to changes in technology.” “There is room for federal legislation, but at the same time allowing the States to be able to address what is going to be very important.”

Board Member Lydia De La Torre stated: “Preemption to me doesn't really align with ensuring that Californians or, for that matter of residents of any state, enjoy the highest possible privacy protections.” “This is particularly concerning to me in an era... where Roe has been repealed.“

Board Member Vinhcent Le stated: "Pre-emption would mean that California no longer have the right to opt out of automated decision making or to get meaningful information when an automated system profiles them or makes a high stakes decisions around who has access to jobs, healthcare, credit, housing, you name it." “While I am excited about the prospect of a national privacy law, I believe it does not need to come at the expense of the privacy rights we have here in California.”

An archived video of the meeting is available here. Contact: press@cppa.ca.gov