Sen. Brown Criticizes Data Brokers for Not Testifying Before Banking
The Senate Banking Committee invited data brokers to testify Tuesday, but they declined because they’re “probably a little bit embarrassed” by their data harvesting business models, ranking member Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told reporters. Brown criticized the “cowardice” of the industry. He cited some of the biggest names: Acxiom, CoreLogic, Spokeo, ZoomInfo and Oracle. The Consumer Data Industry Association didn’t comment.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“We expect to have full input from all parties,” Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, told reporters but wouldn't name invitees. It’s “remarkable” data brokers were asked to testify and declined, said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. Brown said he and Crapo are in legislative discussion with Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Tim Scott, R-S.C.; and John Kennedy, R-La. Both parties are interested in the “intersection” of credit reporting and data brokers and shining a light on collection activity for the public, Brown said.
Lawmakers should explore expanding the Fair Credit Reporting Act to cover data brokers, testified GAO Financial Markets and Community Investment Director Alicia Cackley and World Privacy Forum Executive Director Pam Dixon. Crapo said FCRA might need expansion. But he told reporters, “I’m not sure that means that it doesn’t [cover brokers] already. But the law should be made clear that the breadth of data collection going on is covered.” Crapo asked whether data brokers know more about the average consumer than the federal government does, and both witnesses agreed.
Crapo is increasingly convinced that data privacy legislation needs to be comprehensive, not sectoral. “Which doesn’t mean you can’t have sectoral refinement,” he said, calling it a complicated issue. FCRA is “pretty broad already, but it hasn’t been interpreted as broadly as it allows,” Crapo said. Industry is trying to extract as much data as possible, targeting consumers without any control, Brown said.
New markets have vastly increased the amount of data companies collect, but privacy laws don’t reflect those changes, GAO's Cackley said. The current privacy framework warrants reconsideration from Congress, she said.
Schatz emphasized the need for privacy legislation to include a duty-of-care provision. He’s one of six Senate Commerce Committee members negotiating bipartisan legislation for the panel. Once data is collected, the question becomes what are the obligations, Schatz said. The simplest way to address the issue is to say one can’t intentionally harm a person’s data, he continued. Otherwise, he said, “we’ll always be a decade behind” new industries and methods that crop up. Cackley agreed duty of care would be a good “basic” element to include in privacy legislation. FCRA is helpful in giving consumers the ability to correct information, Cackley said. Schatz, however, said the FCRA framework isn’t satisfactory because it puts the onus on consumers to correct the record.
Brown noted Amazon's “anticompetitive” practices undermining manufacturing. He also claimed Facebook is undermining the profitability of newspapers all over the country, a point discussed during a House Antitrust Subcommittee hearing Tuesday (see 1906110072).
Data brokers are operating out of the public’s eye with no chance to consent to their data collection methods, Brown told reporters. They’re under the impression they’ll never have to “crawl out of their primordial mud,” he said.