Letter from 45 organizations opposing a discussion draft that would amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(GLBA), because the draft bill is both inadequate and harmful to consumer protection:
- It keeps a broken system going: The discussion draft retains the current weak GLBA framework that puts the burden on consumers to opt out of data sharing, instead of requiring that financial institutions obtain consumers’ affirmative opt-in for the ways their data may be used inside and outside of the company
- It doesn’t really require data minimization: While the draft purports to include a data minimization standard, it is undermined by an overly broad exception for anything that is relevant to a “legitimate business” interest, as defined by the entity.
- It tramples on states’ rights: The draft would preempt stronger state privacy and data security provisions, such as California’s Right to Financial Privacy Act, and could be argued to negate consumer protection laws such as state credit reporting laws, including provisions that protect consumers from the unfair harm of medical debts and unjust eviction records. It could also cut short attempts by states to address AI and surveillance pricing.
- It denies access to a powerful tool for accountability by failing to allow consumers to enforce their rights: The draft fails to provide consumers with the ability to enforce their rights when financial institutions violate GLBA and could be used to block this source of redress under state law.
See all resources related to: Credit Reporting & Data Fairness