Some of this discussion has been along the lines that under existing law this information is shielded and we are taking something away from people. The fact is, under existing law there are no limitations on the sharing of information with affiliates. That is the existing law. What the committee has sought to do is place the limitation on the sharing of information with affiliates for solicitation for marketing purposes, which is the biggest complaint we have heard flowing out of the sharing of information. That is what people have complained to us about. We are trying to provide that protection for the consumer. The California law and the amendment take a different approach. They, in effect, say you cannot share information with an affiliate or the consumer has to be given the opportunity to opt out. But the California law has some exceptions or exemptions from that requirement. The amendment that is pending has 17 such exemptions.
John Sarbanes: “Some of this discussion has been along the lines that under existing law this information is shielded and we are taking…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing consumer protection and information sharing regulations during a legislative amendment debate.
Share
More from John Sarbanes
I hope that today's hearing is the first step in continuing that legacy of strong bipartisan support for the Chesapeake Bay in this Congress.
Due to testing positive for COVID-19 and following recommended isolation protocols, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall no. 122, ``nay'' on rollcall no. 123, and ``nay'' on rollcall no…
A strong, well-trained workforce is critical to ensuring a high-quality healthcare delivery system.
If you concluded that putting some reasonable limits in place and trying to find a way to enforce them would lead some percentage of your users to leave TikTok and go somewhere else, is that something that you are prepared to accept?





