La. House Commerce Panel Supports Age Verification by App Stores
Louisiana legislators on Monday cleared privacy legislation requiring app stores to verify ages. Also at the House Commerce Committee hearing, the sponsor of a bill on protecting genomic data voluntarily deferred her own measure.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
HB-570, introduced by Rep. Kim Carver (R), would require age verification by app stores before users can download apps. Last week, the committee delayed voting on the bill to allow for more negotiation with tech companies (see 2504280035).
Carver said companies have the technology to verify ages. "That's why I think it's the easiest, most consistent and most private privacy-protective solution possible, because instead of 1.5 million apps having to take parents' information, we're doing it at the app store level.”
The committee voted by voice to adopt some changes proposed by Rep. Paula Davis (R). Davis asked to update some definitions and rephrase the bill to say that developers will “continue” to be responsible for age verification. Also, she sought to clarify that app developers must still ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Some committee members asked about extenuating circumstances that may make it difficult to apply the proposed law. “We're getting to an age now where it is possible that [teenagers] could have their own job[s] and buy the phone themselves,” said Rep. Stephanie Hilferty (R). She asked how the bill would work in that situation.
Rep. Shaun Raphael Mena (D) asked how the bill would work for minors who were emancipated from their parents. Hilferty agreed with Mena’s concerns and asked Carver to specifically call out these exceptions in the bill.
“I’m happy to think about that,” Carver replied.
Rep. Edmond Jordan (D) asked if the bill is addressing the right thing. “Instagram itself may not necessarily be the issue, but the experience that one has within Instagram is the bigger concern.”
Brinkley Bennett, a junior at St. Joseph's Academy in Baton Rouge, testified in support. HB-570 “is a digital seatbelt,” she said. “It is making sure that the youth is safely buckled up before they jump into the digital interstate, one that is fast, one that is unpredictable, and one that can be dangerous.”
However, tech industry associations like NetChoice and the Chamber of Progress opposed the bill for privacy and First Amendment reasons.
Genomic Privacy
The committee also heard testimony on a bill (HB-125) by Rep. Dodie Horton (R) aimed at protecting an individual's genomic information from certain foreign entities.
“The threat, in this case, and in many cases, is the Communist Party of China,” and the bill specifically targets companies like Beijing Genomics, said State Armor founder Michael Lucci, who helped Horton draft the bill. “What's important is to keep that genetic data from being entered into those companies.”
Some committee members raised concerns about the bill's scope and impact. “I just don't think it's the role of the legislature to tell institutions how they can conduct research,” said Rep. Jessica Domangue (R). “By doing this, are we telling" Louisana State University's health sciences program that it "can't use this certain software because it might have a chip that was made in China, [even though it] can potentially cure cancer?” That “just seems like a slippery slope [and] goes a little bit too far,” she said.
Horton said “our main focus is to support what … sanctions the federal government has already passed and implemented and protect our data,” and she is willing to work with affected entities on amendments. “We're trying to protect the data that our researchers have from being sent to one of our foreign adversaries.”
Jordan asked what the proposed law would mean for hospitals using Apple iPads that are made in China. Does the bill tell “Apple and Google and Dell and all these other companies that might be producing their hardware in China that now they've got to bring that … back into America or Europe or somewhere that's non-blacklisted?”
Lucci said the bill's language -- which says health tech “cannot be produced by a foreign adversary, a state-owned enterprise of foreign adversary, a company domiciled in a foreign adversary, or an owned or controlled subsidiary of an affiliate” -- wouldn't apply to Apple.
Jordan disagreed with that interpretation. “I understand what you mean the intent of it is, and I might somewhat agree with your intent, but … respectfully, that is not what this says here on these lines,” he said. “The fact that we're not clear about it gives me some concern.”
Given the feedback from the committee, Horton said she would voluntarily defer the bill to provide time to work on amendments.