Nebraska Senator Aims to Go 'Above and Beyond' State Privacy Law
Sen. Margo Juarez (D) wants to add “teeth” to Nebraska’s privacy law with a bill like California’s Delete Act that aims to make it easier for consumers to delete their data, she said in an interview Tuesday. However, at a livestreamed hearing of the bicameral legislature’s Commerce Committee Monday, counsel for Nebraska’s secretary of state raised concerns that the bill would be difficult to implement.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
The data deletion bill (LB-602) goes “above and beyond” the “basic foundation” provided by the comprehensive Nebraska privacy law that took effect Jan. 1, Juarez told Privacy Daily. Data brokers “can do more with our data than people even realize, and that’s why it’s so important to try to get some regulations.”
LB-602 would require data brokers to register with the secretary of state, add data security requirements for brokers, and require an accessible mechanism to let customers easily delete data. It would apply only to companies that buy and sell third-party data or data from a consumer who lacks a direct relationship with the entity that collected the information. As with the state privacy law, the attorney general would have exclusive enforcement authority.
While red states like Nebraska don’t frequently base bills off laws from blue California, Juarez said she’s optimistic about finding bipartisan support “once I really help them understand what it’s all about.” As “a conservative state,” Nebraska should be even more interested in monitoring how brokers use consumer data, said the lawmaker: “It’s something that should be important to both parties.”
The Nebraska Secretary of State is officially “neutral” on LB-602. But at the hearing Monday, Associate General Counsel David Wilson cautioned against adding to his department’s workload. The bill would "assign significant duties" that are "unlike anything we currently have or any subject matter we currently regulate,” he said. “Data brokers will be new to us.” Nobody in the office has “subject matter expertise to handle this, so we'd likely have to go outside to find someone who could do that to even begin the implementation process.”
Additionally, "we'd also have to develop a new program to manage the registry and the website and the data elimination functionality that would be required by this bill,” said Wilson. Implementing the registration process by the proposed January 2026 deadline seems unlikely, and the fees the bill would authorize may not be enough to cover costs, he added.
The Consumer Data Industry Association opposes the legislation, said lobbyist Ken Schilz, adding that he also speaks for Nebraska retail and grocery industry groups. California won’t start taking deletion requests until August next year, “so there is no test case that we can use to see if predictions regarding unintended consequences will come true or if the processes will actually function as envisioned.” The Nebraska privacy law gives consumers enough deletion rights, he said. Besides, added Schilz, data brokers serve many "legitimate purposes," including helping companies fight fraud and small businesses reach potential customers with data-driven ads.
Concerning funding, Juarez noted that the bill proposes fees that data brokers would pay to help cover costs. Possibly reducing Nebraska's costs, the California Privacy Protection Agency has shown openness to sharing code developed to implement its Delete Act with other states, she added.
However, Juarez told us she intends to “get more one-on-one” time with committee members to help them understand her bill’s importance. “It’s a good first step to get it out there, and then, I think, there’s going to be plenty of more work yet, besides the funding issues, to just get people educated.”
Vermont lawmakers are expected to weigh a similar Delete Act proposal this year. Its sponsor, Rep. Monique Priestley (D), told us Friday that she hopes to introduce the measure, along with separate comprehensive privacy and kids code bills, by the end of this week.
The Nebraska committee also heard testimony Monday on bills proposing an age-appropriate design code (LB-504) and agricultural data privacy rules (LB-525).
Committee members appeared largely dismissive of opposition to the kids code bill that lobbyists for national industry groups, including NetChoice and the Software & Information Industry Association, presented. Chair Sen. Mike Jacobsen (R) noted the “lack of some clear alternative" and said lawmakers are tired of waiting for industry to self-correct "while we're losing kids."