An amendment to a pending data‑privacy bill that would expand protections for public servants and change enforcement from fines to court injunctions was presented to the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on March 21.

The amendment sponsor told the committee the changes ‘‘focus on immediate removal of dangerous information rather than prolonged litigation’’ and ‘‘prioritize compliance, not litigation.’’ The amendment would expand covered persons to include all government lawyers, jurors who served in the last 18 months and members of the General Assembly; it replaces the term “data broker” with “commercial entity” so enforcement applies to any business that publicly discloses sensitive personal information; and it subjects public agencies to the same removal requirements as private entities.

Key elements of the amendment

- Expanded coverage: The amendment adds categories of public servants (government lawyers, recent jurors, legislators) to address risks of retaliation tied to public duties.

- Scope: The bill language would apply to all commercial entities that publicly disclose protected information, not only to companies registered as data brokers.

- Enforcement: The amendment removes monetary damages and civil fines in favor of a legal injunction process; if a company or agency fails to comply with a court order, the court may award mandatory attorney’s fees and costs to the covered person.

- Process and reporting: The amendment requires a removal/redaction response within 15 days and directs the state court administrator to report annually on injunctions filed, granted, denied or appealed as well as violations and attorneys’ fees awarded. The definition of “disclose” would be modified to mean “publicly post or display.”

Committee questions and concerns

Committee members pressed the sponsor and staff counsel on several practical and legal points: how injunctions would be enforced against multibillion‑dollar, multinational technology companies; whether the attorney general’s office would have a role under consumer‑protection laws; and whether criminal enforcement mechanisms should be considered. One member asked what remedies a court would have if a large company ignored an injunction; the sponsor and committee counsel said courts could enforce injunctions but acknowledged that the amendment removes direct statutory damages and relies on court processes.

Members also raised cost and access concerns for covered persons. The amendment eliminates an assignee provision that previously allowed third parties to bring claims, and members noted that individuals may face repeated filings if their information appears in multiple places across the internet. A member asked whether paid databases or results behind paywalls (for example, aggregator sites) would be covered; the sponsor deferred detailed legal interpretation to committee counsel but indicated the amendment intends to capture a broad range of public disclosures.

Other practical points discussed included the 15‑day removal period, the exception for information voluntarily and publicly disclosed by the covered person on or after July 1, 2025, and the need to coordinate education and technical support for municipalities, nonprofits and state agencies if the bill’s scope is expanded. Several members said they were concerned about enabling frivolous litigation and suggested adding additional guardrails such as cure periods and other limits the committee might consider.

Next steps

Committee members said they want additional time to compare the amended language against prior versions and to consult the attorney general’s office and other stakeholders, including municipal and nonprofit representatives, before acting. No formal committee vote on the amendment was recorded in the March 21 session.

Ending

The committee planned to resume floor business and to reconvene later to examine the language in detail and possible side‑by‑side comparisons of the bill text.