Privacy on the Map (Part 2): Progress, Pitfalls, and the Fight for Enforceable Location Data Protections

Based on the article, here are the key points regarding current state laws and their gaps in protecting precise geolocation data:

1. Enforcement Void:

   • None of the five enacted bills (California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia) explicitly empower consumers to directly sue companies that violate location privacy rights.
   • Relying solely on state Attorneys General or specialized regulatory agencies creates a bottleneck due to limited staffing and budget constraints.
   • A Private Right of Action is essential for effective enforcement.

2. Private Right of Action (PRA):

   • Legislation should include an explicit PRA within the privacy statute, providing statutory liquidated damages and prohibiting mandatory arbitration.
   • Piggybacking on state laws against unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices (UDAP) can be inconsistent across states and may not provide adequate remedies.

3. Pay-for-Privacy Trap:

   • All three states requiring consent to process precise geolocation data (Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia) have weak limitations on pay-for-privacy schemes.
   • These laws allow companies to charge higher prices or downgrade service quality for users who exercise their privacy rights through discount programs.
   • This approach forces economically vulnerable communities to trade

Read the full article at EFF Deeplinks

---

Want to create content about this topic? Use Nemati AI tools to generate articles, social posts, and more.