Congress has proved itself adept at missing opportunities to pass the type of federal privacy law that an overwhelming majority of voters support. Lawmakers should avoid displaying this talent again as the midterms approach.
Members from California especially have been reluctant to throw ADPPA their support — with some voting the bill out of committee but announcing they’d reject its current form on the floor, and others simply voting no. These representatives believe their state’s own law is stronger, and they don’t want a nationwide standard to supersede it. Yet not only has the federal legislation already been altered to ensure that California’s dedicated enforcer can enforce ADPPA, too, but its standards are also more robust in almost every important area, from its civil rights protections to its privacy by design and data minimization requirements. The most valid criticism from California is that ADPPA could prevent the state from innovating in the future with standards that go beyond what Congress has put into place. But that’s little more than a hypothetical. By shielding people from exploitation today, ADPPA would improve the status quo everywhere — including in the Golden State.
ADPPA’s private right of action has also prompted cries of protest, and it, too, has seen changes that ought to allay any distress. Originally, individuals weren’t allowed to sue companies until four years after the law’s enactment; now, they’ll have to wait only two years. Most significant, presumably in response to concerns from Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), there’s now a ban on forced arbitration for disputes involving gender-based violence or physical harm — so that companies can’t deprive consumers from seeking recourse for these grave violations in court. Smaller clarifications have cleaned up procedural problems that could have impeded some claims.
This legislation is a compromise years in the making. Not everyone is going to be happy with everything in the bill, but enough people should be happy with enough things to push it through to passage. Congress should take a vote on privacy as soon as possible and break its losing streak.
The Post’s View | About the Editorial Board
Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom.
Members of the Editorial Board and areas of focus: Deputy Editorial Page Editor Karen Tumulty; Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus; Associate Editorial Page Editor Jo-Ann Armao (education, D.C. affairs); Jonathan Capehart (national politics); Lee Hockstader (immigration; issues affecting Virginia and Maryland); David E. Hoffman (global public health); Charles Lane (foreign affairs, national security, international economics); Heather Long (economics); Molly Roberts (technology and society); and Stephen Stromberg (elections, the White House, Congress, legal affairs, energy, the environment, health care).