Later Rather Than Sooner: Oklahoma Enacts State Privacy Law No. 21

After a steady stream of state-level privacy statutes, capped by passage of the Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act in June 2024, for nearly two years the pipeline ran dry. That drought ended on March 20, when Sooner State Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law the Oklahoma Consumer Data Privacy Act (OCDPA). With that, the list of states to have passed a comprehensive data privacy statute now stands (by my count) at 21.

At the federal level, meanwhile, the pickings remain slim. In late March, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) for the fourth time introduced the Online Protection Act, the shortcomings of which I rehashed in a contemporaneous post to the Free State Foundation blog. Beyond that, hopeful eyes can look only to the House Commerce Committee Privacy Working Group, which was created in February 2025 and sought public input a month later. As I noted in a January Perspectives from FSF Scholars, reporting at that time suggested that the working group could release a draft bill … "soon."

The good news about the OCDPA, which closely tracks the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, is that it does not impose more burdensome obligations than existing state laws – and therefore is regarded as a relatively "business-friendly" addition to the state-level "patchwork."

The bad news, of course, is that it further expands that "patchwork," thereby compounding compliance headaches for companies – especially smaller companies and start-ups – and making it even more challenging for consumers to comprehend their rights.

*    *    *

More targeted than other state laws, the OCDPA applies only to businesses operating in Oklahoma or targeting Oklahoma residents that control or process the personal data of either (1) 100,000 or more Oklahoma consumers, or (2) at least 25,000 Oklahoma consumers while deriving over 50 percent of their gross revenue from the "sale" of personal data. (By comparison, that threshold is lower – 25 percent – in most state laws.) In addition, the ODCPA defines "sale" relatively narrowly – that is, only where personal data is exchanged for monetary consideration.

The law establishes a now-familiar set of consumer rights: to access and confirm the processing of personal data, to correct inaccuracies, to delete, and to obtain a portable copy. In addition, consumers can opt out of the processing of personal data for targeted advertising, the sale of their personal data, and profiling.

"Sensitive data" – defined to include racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, health diagnoses, sexual orientation, citizenship status, genetic or biometric data used for identification, and precise geolocation data – may not be processed without the consumer's opt-in consent.

Covered businesses must abide by data-minimization principles, limiting collection to what is adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary. They also must conduct data protection assessments before engaging in activities such as targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and the processing of "sensitive data."

Two additional features of the OCDPA are worth highlighting. First, enforcement authority rests exclusively with the Oklahoma Attorney General; there is no private right of action. Second, the law includes a permanent, mandatory 30-day "right to cure" period for alleged violations – a feature that stands in contrast to the trend in other states toward sunsetting or eliminating cure periods altogether. Violations may result in penalties of up to $7,500 per incident.

The OCDPA will go into effect on January 1, 2027.

*    *    *

As I've stated countless times, the absence of a comprehensive federal data privacy law that would preempt this now-larger "patchwork" remains a glaring gap. With each new state law – and each set of idiosyncratic definitions of rights, responsibilities, thresholds, exemptions, enforcement mechanisms, and so on – the compliance burden on businesses grows heavier and the regulatory landscape confronting consumers grows murkier.

Broadband Trade Associations Call on Congress to Pass H.R. 2289: The American Broadband Deployment Act

On April 13 a broad coalition of 13 associations representing different parts of America’s communications infrastructure wrote a joint letter to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives urging them to support passage of H.R 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act (ABDA). The House Committee on Energy and Commerce passed the bill 26-24. The Rules Committee is scheduled to consider it on Monday, April 20.

The letter pointed out that, while Congress has devoted over $42 billion to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment and other programs, builders continue to face persistent permitting barriers that delay deployment and realizing the full benefits of the funds. The letter makes several common arguments in favor of implementing permitting reform. First, the cost of delay due to inefficient permitting processes limits the reach of broadband networks and raises costs to consumers. Second, every dollar that is devoted to the permitting process is a dollar that cannot be invested in more efficient networking equipment. Third, broadband deployment supports America’s strategic position in the global contest to advance artificial intelligence because AI cannot function without connectivity.

 

H.R 2289 seeks to advance broadband deployment by establishing seamless, nationwide rules for obtaining federal, state, and local permits needed to complete broadband deployment. The ABDA codifies the FCC’s deployment streamlining orders and interpretations developed over the past two decades and builds on two current FCC efforts to speed permitting for wireless and wired deployments, respectively. The bill attempts to set out clear rules for state and local agencies, including streamlined review for deployments on existing infrastructure, binding shot clocks, and limits on the amount of fees and other conditions that can be imposed by agencies.

At the federal level, the bill provides that certain requests to modify an existing wireless tower or base station by collecting, removing, or replacing transmission equipment will not be considered a “major federal action” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or an undertaking” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This excuses companies from having to undergo long and costly environmental reviews.

The letter notes that the House has already passed two pieces of permitting legislation on a voice vote. H.R. 1665 passed the House on March 16, 2026. It directs the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to establish an online portal for the acceptance, processing, and disposal of forms seeking permission to use federal land for communications purposes. Each portal will be published on the website of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for public use.

H.R. 5419 passed the House on March 3, 2026. It directs the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and Agriculture to each conduct a study of programmatic or administrative barriers to the timely review of requests for broadband use authorizations, whether revisions to rules or regulations could improve efficiency with respect to reviewing requests for broadband land use authorizations, and whether there are processes for prioritizing the review of requests for broadband land use authorizations. Within a year the Secretaries must give a joint report to Congress describing the results of their respective studies, including any reforms described therein, together with a plan for providing the staffing necessary to ensure timely review of broadband land use authorizations.

It is notable that the focus on federal permitting efforts seems largely confined to reducing the requirements of the two major pieces of environmental legislation. This is consistent with two recent reports on federal permitting requirements. A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service process most applications from telecommunications providers to install communications use equipment or facilities—including for broadband Internet—on federal property. However, GAO found that from fiscal years 2018 through 2022, these agencies lacked accurate and complete data needed to determine the processing time for 42 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of their communications use applications. These agencies also lacked the necessary controls to ensure staff entered key information, such as start and end dates, in their electronic systems. A more recent study concluded that there are no recent data on the costs that wireless providers face when complying with NEPA and NHPA. Using data obtained through surveys and working sessions, it estimated that mobile wireless providers would spend over $2.2 billion on regulatory compliance within the next decade.

While H.R.2289 will certainly help companies obtain federal licenses faster and with less expense, state and local requirements may be less amenable to reform. The ABDA has generated significant opposition from state and local agencies. As part of its broader efforts to reform regulations, the FCC has initiated two important proceedings to eliminate unnecessary delays in broadband deployment imposed by state and local governments. These include a Notice of Inquiry focused on eliminating barriers to wireline deployments and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for wireless deployments. Both efforts attracted a large number of public comments including from trade associations detailing several projects experiencing cost and schedule increases that seem unrelated to the true cost of access to public land.

Permitting reform is much needed. Hopefully, the American Broadband Deployment Act and other related legislation implementing permitting reform will be speedily adopted. And, in any event, the FCC's own efforts will still be important.

Tax Day Reminds Us That Marylanders Are Voting With Their Feet

Ahead of Tax Day, a new report from personal-finance company WalletHub ranks Maryland as 7th in the nation for the highest state tax burden on personal income – Maryland residents send 9.7% of their personal income to state coffers. And that's on top of the money residents pay in federal income taxes and in various state service fees, such as recent increases for vehicle requirements.

Income taxes, specifically, are the main driver of Maryland's high tax burden ranking, according to WalletHub. Maryland places 3rd in the nation for the highest income tax burden, with 4.3% of residents' personal income going to the state through that channel alone. WalletHub also examined property taxes and sales and excise taxes, where Maryland scored better. Maryland places 29th for property taxes (2.5% of personal income to the state) and 40th for sales and excise taxes (2.9% of personal income to the state), meaning it's the income tax load that pushes the overall state’s overall personal tax burden so high.

Maryland’s high tax burden is a major reason for Maryland’s outmigration problem. Even an analysis by the Maryland Chamber of Commerce last year featured Maryland’s troublesome outmigration, explaining that Maryland ranks near last in domestic migration – 45th in the nation. Maryland did have net positive migration in the year examined (July 2023 - July 2024), but that was because of international arrivals (53,100), which masked Maryland residents moving to other states (18,500).

The Chamber of Commerce analysis explained the state’s serious situation: "High taxes, rising living costs, housing affordability challenges and regulatory complexity are pushing residents to states with lower costs, better growth prospects, and more business-friendly climates." The top destinations include Florida, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania – all states that offer lower or no income taxes.

If residents continue leaving for lower-tax, lower-cost states, Maryland may find itself caught in a fiscal cycle or downward spiral that's difficult to reverse – fewer taxpayers and even less room to reduce the burden on those who stay.

The FCC Should Not Mandate the Next Gen TV Transition

Communications is one of the most innovative sectors of the U.S. economy. Industries ranging from broadcasting, smart phones, over-the-top Internet, cable, and satellite are battling for a larger slice of the market for entertainment and communication, broadly defined. So far, the secret to success has usually been the introduction of a new technology or business model that improves users’ experience. Regulators should welcome this type of marketplace competition since it produces faster growth and better living standards. It also helps boost U.S. competitiveness in a strategic competition against international challengers.

However, companies sometimes engage in another form of competition. That is, seeking to pressure regulators to give their own preferred technology or standards an advantage by adopting rules that favor them. This can be done by forcing competitors to use a favored regulatory standard or discouraging the use of a rival one. Either option conveys a competitive advantage in the marketplace. While it is normally preferable for companies that may compete with each other to face similar regulatory burdens, this is almost always better achieved by lowering the total burden rather than increasing it. Specifically, regulators should be very careful not to favor one technology over another absent compelling circumstances.

 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the broadcasting industry is advocating as it asks the FCC to make the new Next Gen TV standard (also known as ATSC 3.0) mandatory. This would force households, broadcasting stations, and cable and satellite providers to purchase new equipment to meet the standards. It is not that the standard is per se bad. A number of broadcasters have voluntarily adopted Next Gen TV on their own. The underlying objection is that making Next Gen TV mandatory would foreclose the ongoing competition between it and other standards, including the existing one, and remove the pressure to improve them over time.

The broadcasters’ request has attracted opposition, including from cable and satellite operators who would have to adopt Next Gen TV in order to deliver broadcasters’ channels to their subscribers. The broadcasters are also requesting that the FCC should set a firm deadline ending use of the current ATSC 1.0 signals. This would force everyone to switch over to the new standard. Viewers would have to buy either converters to translate the new standard or new televisions with the new tuners.

As the NCTA writes: “[T]he cable industry does not oppose broadcasters’ use of new technologies. We simply believe that broadcasters’ transition to a new standard should not come at the expense of [multichannel video programming distributors], equipment manufacturers, and consumers, with no guarantee of meaningful benefits.”

The FCC may lack the power to do what broadcasters are requesting. As the NCTA points out, current must carry requirements were passed when it was possible to argue that cable carriage was necessary to protect free, over-the-air broadcasting because there was little competition between content providers. Since then there has been an explosion in video offerings. In addition to the traditional over-the-air broadcasters, many homes can choose between cable, satellite, fiber, and over-the-top content on the Internet. The rationale for regulation is much weaker now.

In addition, courts have adopted less deferential standards for reviewing agency action, especially for issues of “vast economic and political significance,” unless Congress has clearly empowered the agency with authority over the issue. FCC rules may not survive a challenge under the new doctrine. The NCTA argues that forced conversion, by requiring significant costs, would represent a taking and force their members to carry certain broadcasts against their will.

Continued innovation in the communications marketplace over the next decade will be much faster if two conditions are met. The first is that new technical standards are welcome provided they increase value to consumers. Second, such new standards will need to spread through voluntary adoption driven by consumer demand. The FCC should not favor one set of standards over others.

Sanders' AI Bill Is a Red Herring and Blackburn's Has Problems

With the White House calling for a national AI framework to end the patchwork of state regulation, two notable proposed pieces of federal legislation have emerged. And the one getting less attention at the moment is the one that matters more.

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) released a discussion draft of the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act (you read that right, The Republic Unifying Meritocratic Performance Advancing Machine Intelligence by Eliminating Regulatory Interstate Chaos Across American Industry Act) on March 18, 2026, a 291-page federal framework developed in response to the Trump administration's call for a national AI policy. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), joined by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), introduced the 13-page Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act on March 25, 2026. It would halt data center construction until Congress enacts legislation to ensure: that future AI products are "safe and effective"; that AI does “not threaten the health and well-being of working families”; and that AI does not displace jobs. The two AI bills are not comparable in scope or consequence.

The Sanders moratorium bill has received the most mainstream coverage, possibly in part because it is the only one of the two to be formally introduced. But it’s easy to see why all the fuss. The moratorium bill takes advantage of anxieties that translate directly into headlines: job displacement, strain on the power grid, and industrial construction in people's backyards. While these concerns affect real people, the bill's moratorium is ill-conceived and would be harmful. Pausing data center construction pending new AI legislation would be a significant brake on American AI infrastructure at precisely the moment the Trump administration is pushing to accelerate it and would let foreign competitors move ahead.

But Sanders’ moratorium bill is almost certainly a political statement about AI as a threat rather than a realistic proposal. It is unlikely to gain serious legislative traction, and its primary practical effect may be to divert attention from more consequential legislation.

The Blackburn bill is one piece of potentially more consequential legislation. As a proposed comprehensive federal AI framework, it is more technically complex and far-reaching than the moratorium bill. Yet it has received a fraction of the coverage. Other think tanks including the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute have explained how the bill would impose heavy-handed regulation across the AI ecosystem.

Some aspects of Senator Blackburn’s bill that may be problematic and require close attention include: a full-on repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934; imposing “duty of care” on chatbot developers; holding AI developers liable for harms beyond existing laws on fair and deceptive practices; requiring federal contracts to use "unbiased" large language models; creating a Department of Energy testing program for adverse incidents in AI systems; and directing DOE to develop certification procedures, licensing requirements, and broad regulatory oversight.

I wrote last week that the federal AI framework needs a light-handed approach grounded in free market competition. I explained that “robust competition among American companies is the precondition for national competitiveness” and consumer satisfaction. While established developers may fare fine under such a burdensome scheme, their products would fall behind other nations not facing such operating and compliance costs. And startups and emerging competitors would fare even worse.

The Sanders moratorium deserves the criticism it has received. But the current Blackburn bill has problematic provisions that deserve scrutiny it has not yet gotten.