Sacramento, California – California Attorney General Rob Bonta is pressing Congress not to trade away state-level privacy rights in the name of a nationwide standard, leading a multistate coalition against a federal proposal that he says would weaken protections already available to millions of consumers.
On June 2, Bonta joined with attorneys general and state agencies from across the country in submitting a letter opposing the Securing and Establishing Consumer Uniform Rights and Enforcement over Data Act, known as the SECURE Data Act. The coalition of 18 attorneys general and agencies is calling on Congress to reject the proposal unless it preserves the ability of states to maintain and strengthen their own consumer privacy laws.
Read also: Sophisticated scams place older Californians at growing risk of fraudulent healthcare billing
At the heart of the dispute is a question that reaches into everyday life: who gets to decide how much protection people have when companies collect, store, share or sell their personal information?
California has been at the center of that debate since 2018, when it enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, the nation’s first comprehensive state privacy law. The measure gave residents stronger control over information gathered by businesses, helping establish rights that other states later adopted in their own laws.
Bonta and the coalition say the proposed federal measure would not simply create a national privacy standard. In their view, it would replace stronger protections in states such as California with a weaker framework and sharply limit the ability of state leaders to react as technology changes.
“Federal action to protect Americans’ privacy is essential, but not at the expense of the strong state laws that already protect Californians. I join colleagues from across the country in opposition to the SECURE Data Act, federal legislation that would leave millions of consumers worse off and with fewer privacy protections,” said Attorney General Bonta.
“As tech and data collection practices rapidly innovate, it is essential states keep our ability to respond just as rapidly to protect our residents from emerging privacy threats.”
The coalition’s concern is not abstract. Current comprehensive state privacy laws include added safeguards for minors and sensitive consumer information. They also place restrictions on how personal data may be used or retained. In California, consumers can direct businesses not to sell or share their personal information, including through tools such as a universal opt-out preference signal.
According to the coalition, the SECURE Data Act would erase or narrow meaningful protections already in place. The officials argue it would make privacy rights harder for consumers to exercise, allow businesses greater discretion over how long data can be kept and how it can be used, and substantially reduce enforcement remedies available when protections are violated.
Their letter to congressional leaders urges lawmakers to view state laws not as obstacles to federal action, but as a foundation that should remain intact. A federal privacy law, they argue, should set protections without preventing states from responding to new risks in their own communities.
That flexibility matters, the coalition says, because the digital world does not stand still. New products, new tracking methods and new forms of data collection can emerge quickly. State governments, the officials argue, must be allowed to answer those developments with updated protections when needed.
Joining Bonta were the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. The California Privacy Protection Agency and the Hawai’i Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs also signed onto the opposition.
Read also: California-grown food faces new scrutiny as pesticide-linked chemicals reach water and sediment
For California, the message to Congress is clear: national privacy protections may be welcome, but they should not come by removing rights residents already have. As lawmakers consider the SECURE Data Act, the coalition is asking them to build upward from existing protections, rather than replace stronger state safeguards with something less.