On May 4, 2023, the Florida Senate and House of Representatives voted in favor of sending the Florida Digital Bill of Rights (“FDBR”) and other amendments related to government moderation of social media and protection of children in online spaces (S.B. 262) to Governor Ron DeSantis for signature. Unlike the other comprehensive state privacy laws that have been enacted, the FDBR applies to a much narrower subset of entities.
FDBR
Applicability
If enacted, the FDBR would apply to a “controller,” meaning an entity that conducts business in Florida, collects personal data about consumers, makes in excess of $1 billion in global gross annual reviews and satisfies at least one of the following: (1) derives 50 percent or more of its global gross annual revenues from the sale of advertisements online, including providing targeted advertising or the sale of ads online; (2) operates a consumer smart speaker and voice command component service with an integrated virtual assistant connected to a cloud computing service that uses hands-free verbal activation; or (3) operates an app store or a digital distribution platform that offers at least 250,000 different software applications for consumers to download and install. “Consumer” means an individual resident or domiciled in Florida and does not include an individual acting in a commercial or employment context.
Controller Obligations
The FDBR would require controllers to: (1) provide a privacy notice with certain specified content; (2) establish a secure and reliable means for consumers to exercise their privacy rights under the law; (3) obtain a consumer’s consent to process sensitive data; (4) enter into contracts with its processors; and (5) conduct and document data protection assessments.
The FDBR also uniquely would require a controller that operates a search engine to make available on its website “an up-to-date plain language description of the main parameters that are individually or collectively the most significant in determining ranking and the relative importance of those main parameters, including the prioritization or deprioritization of political partisanship or political ideology in search results.” Controllers would not be required to disclose algorithms or any other information that, “with reasonable certainty, would enable deception of or harm to consumers through the manipulation of search results.”
Consumer Rights
The FDBR would provide consumers the right to (1) confirm whether a controller is processing the consumer’s personal data and to access the personal data; (2) correct inaccuracies in the consumer’s personal data; (3) delete any or all personal data provided by or obtained about the consumer; (4) obtain a copy of the consumer’s personal data; (5) opt out of the processing of the personal data for purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of a decision that produces a legal or similarly significant effect concerning a consumer; (6) opt out of the collection or processing of sensitive data; and (7) opt out of the collection of personal data collected through the operation of a voice recognition or facial recognition feature.
Enforcement
The FDBR would provide for enforcement by the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, and tripled penalties for certain violations, such as those involving a known child.
The FDBR would:
- Not contain a private right of action;
- Provide for the Department to adopt implementing rules; and
- Permit but not require the Department to provide a 45-day period to cure an alleged violation.
Effective Date
The FDBR would go into effect on July 1, 2024.
Related Statutory Amendments in S.B. 262
In addition to the FDBR, S.B. 262 also contains provisions relating to government moderation of social media and protection of children in online spaces.
Government Moderation of Social Media
S.B. 262 would prohibit a governmental entity from communicating with a social media platform to request that it remove content or accounts from the platform, and from initiating or maintaining any agreements or working relationships with a social media platform for the purpose of content moderation (subject to certain exceptions).
Protection of Children in Online Spaces
S.B. 262 would impose restrictions on an online platform that provides an online service, product, game or feature “likely to be predominantly access by children” relating to:
- Processing the personal information of a child;
- Profiling a child;
- Collecting, selling, sharing or retaining any personal information that is not necessary to provide an online service, product, or feature with which a child is actively and knowingly engaged;
- Using the personal information of a child for any reason other than the reason for which the personal information was collected;
- Collecting, selling, or sharing any precise geolocation data of children;
- Using dark patterns to lead or encourage children to take certain actions; and
- Using any personal information collected to estimate age or age range.
For violations of these provisions, S.B. 262 would provide for the same enforcement provisions as those in the FDBR, including exclusive enforcement by the Florida Department of Legal Affairs, civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, tripled penalties for certain violations, and a permitted 45-day cure period.
Update: On June 6, 2023, Florida State Governor Ron DeSantis signed S.B. 262 into law, making Florida the tenth state to enact a comprehensive privacy law.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code