EVENT April 7: MN House Committee on 3 bills relates to online privacy and contracts (HF4456, HF4544 & HF3698)

I might not have mentioned all three bills, except they are being heard in the same Commerce Finance and Policy committee meeting...

Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 8:15 AM

Co-Chair: Rep. Erin Koegel holds the gavelCo-Chair: Rep. Tim O’DriscollLocation: Capitol 120Agenda:

Approval of Minutes – Thursday, March 26th, 2026

HF4456 (Elkins) – Data brokers required to register with the attorney general, account established, enforcement and civil penalties provided, and money appropriated.

HF4544 (Koegel) – License for artificial intelligence independent verification organizations established, advisory council established, rulemaking authorized, and reports required.

HF3698 (Gottfried) – Certain terms in libraries’ electronic book and digital audiobook license agreements or contracts prohibited.
Adjournment

Items may be added, removed, or taken up in any order at the Chair’s discretion.

HANDOUTS: Handouts MUST BE IN PDF FORMAT, have OCR capability, and emailed to the Committee Administrators at samuel.oneill@house.mn.gov and ben.frese@house.mn.gov by 12 p.m. (noon) the business day before the hearing. If you are bringing hard copies, bring 45 copies. Note: submitted written testimony is public and will be included in the official committee record. It may be posted to the committee webpage if received by deadline.

TESTIFYING: Testimony is limited. The number of testifiers and length of time permitted is at the discretion of the chair, and is subject to change. Please plan accordingly. If you would like to testify, please email the Committee Administrators at samuel.oneill@house.mn.gov and ben.frese@house.mn.gov by 12 p.m. (noon) the business day before the hearing.

AMENDMENTS: There is no amendment deadline for the Commerce Finance and Policy Committee. Amendments must be emailed to the Committee Administrators at samuel.oneill@house.mn.gov and ben.frese@house.mn.gov as soon as possible.

Bills:

  • HF3698 (Gottfried) – Certain terms in libraries’ electronic book and digital audiobook license agreements or contracts prohibited.

  • HF4456 (Elkins) – Data brokers required to register with the attorney general, account established, enforcement and civil penalties provided, and money appropriated.

  • HF4544 (Koegel) – License for artificial intelligence independent verification organizations established, advisory council established, rulemaking authorized, and reports required.

Six Reasons Americans Should Care About the Privacy and Security of Their Personal Data Held by the Government

The Center for Technology and Democracy has published a flier on Six Reasons Americans Should Care About the Privacy and Security of Their Personal Data Held by the Government.

The privacy and security of government data can seem abstract and disconnected from our everyday lives. But Center for Democracy & Technology polling results reveal that these issues resonate deeply for millions of Americans and cut across partisan, racial, and regional divides — 74 percent of Americans worry about the personal data that the government has about them. Protecting the privacy and security of personal data held by the government:

Here’s an abridged list of their six reasons:

  1. Limits government surveillance and discrimination by enforcing strong privacy protections. Government agencies are unique in both the extent and sensitivity of the personal data they collect and the power they could wield by using this information. As a result, the United States has several long-standing privacy protections that are aimed at limiting the federal government’s ability to collect, share, and consolidate personal data.
  2. Supports rightful access to public benefits and services by preserving trust in government. A core function of many government agencies is to deliver services and benefits to the American public, part of which entails identifying and removing barriers to accessing these services and benefits. Failing to protect personal data or using it for purposes beyond program administration can result in fewer people accessing benefits and services to which they are legally entitled, resulting in an American public that is more sick, less educated, unhoused, and undernourished, among other negative societal outcomes.
  3. Prevents identity theft and saves taxpayer money by minimizing risks of potential data breaches and other misuses of data.
  4. Enables trust in government agencies to safely use and handle personal data.
  5. Limits government power by safeguarding information from federal overreach.
  6. Maintains individual autonomy by preserving people’s control over their own information. The U.S. Constitution emphasizes the importance of privacy from government intrusion, demonstrating that this country was founded on the basis of protecting individuals from undue government encroachment.

Four Ideas to Help BEAD Succeed – from Benton Institute for Broadband & Society

So many change with BEAD over the years, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society (or John Windhausen, Jr via Benton) has some suggestions…

Congress created the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program in 2021 “to bridge the digital divide.”[1] The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s own program materials say BEAD “aims to connect every American to high-speed internet” through infrastructure partnerships.[2] That is an important mission, and one that still enjoys broad support.

Operating the program, however, has been challenging, due to rule changes, difficulties identifying unserved and underserved locations, and questions about the capabilities of competing technologies.

I am abbreviating his recommendations…

1. Keep BEAD Focused on Broadband.

The Biden-era BEAD framework attached a series of requirements that were not clearly rooted in the statute, such as labor and climate control measures.[5]  NTIA’s 2025 Restructuring Policy Notice eliminated these “extralegal labor, employment, and workforce development requirements”.[6]

But the Trump Administration risks repeating the same mistake in a different form.

2. Provide LEO Satellite Support for Broadband Adoption, Not Deployment.

Under NTIA’s “Benefit of the Bargain” bidding program, states awarded over 20 percent of “deployment” funding to low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite services.[8]  This is illogical; the satellite companies are already deploying thousands of satellites without government funding.  Providing these companies with “deployment” funding will not yield any additional satellites and could be considered a waste of funds.

On the other hand, providing subsidies to cover the costs of satellite dish equipment and installation will help consumers afford to subscribe, which IS one of the BEAD program’s goals. This makes it a broadband adoption issue, not a deployment issue. States should be allowed to make non-deployment funding available to LEO satellite companies as customers sign up, rather than handing the LEO satellite providers a large up-front check.

3. Do Not Make Sustainability Harder Than It Already Is.

After the “Benefit of the Bargain” competitive bidding process was completed, NTIA adopted a relatively new rule regarding future federal support. In an October 2025 speech at the Hudson Institute, Assistant Secretary Arielle Roth said NTIA would require broadband awardees to certify that they would not “require or take additional federal subsidies—including operational subsidies—to complete or operate their BEAD projects.”[9] That policy was later codified into Term 51 of the November 2025 BEAD General Terms and Conditions.  NTIA justified the rule on default-prevention grounds, arguing that reliance on speculative future funding increases the risk that a project will fail.[10]

The concern is legitimate, but the flat prohibition on additional federal funding may overshoot.

4. Allow States to Use Non-Deployment Funds to Drive Adoption and Long-Term Viability.

Finally, if NTIA wants BEAD-funded networks to last, it should pay closer attention to adoption. NTIA’s own BroadbandUSA homepage describes BEAD as a program supporting broadband “deployment, mapping, and adoption,” not deployment alone. In the February 2026 listening sessions on the use of BEAD savings, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society reported that broadband adoption was the dominant theme, with speakers repeatedly urging NTIA to support affordability, devices, and digital skills alongside network construction.[11]

New MN Bill: End the state’s tax exemption for digital advertising, sales and services HF4343

The Minnesota House reports

Once upon a time, the main place you’d find advertising was in a newspaper. But then billboards became ubiquitous, followed by commercials on radio, then television. Today, it’s an inescapable element of your online experience.

But did you know that no taxes are collected when digital ads are bought in Minnesota? Nor are they for billboards. Sponsored by Rep. Liz Lee (DFL-St. Paul), HF4343 would end the state’s tax exemption for digital advertising, sales and services, and do the same for billboards. And it would lower the state’s sales tax rate by 0.125%.

On Wednesday, the House Taxes Committee laid the bill over, as amended, for possible omnibus bill inclusion.

They looked at

 HF4343 would end the state’s tax exemption for digital advertising, sales and services, and do the same for billboards. And it would lower the state’s sales tax rate by 0.125%.

 

MinnPost gives a current overview of Data Center issues at the MN Legislature

MinnPost reports

A coalition of Minnesotans opposed to the development of data centers has a wishlist for the current legislative session with a hierarchy of priorities.

Banning local officials from signing non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, would be nice, they say. Ditto for requiring public hearings and disclosures prior to the approval of data center permits.

What the group wants above all, though, is a moratorium on proposed projects in Hermantown, Pine Island, Monticello, Farmington, North Mankato and other cities.

“We’re begging, urging the state to pause,” said Rebecca Gilbertson, who lives about a half-mile from a planned Google data center in Hermantown.

There’s a discussion about NDAs…

NDAs are common tools — too common in the eyes of those advocating against them — used in economic development. They allow plans to simmer behind the scenes before any public scrutiny can boil over at public meetings. The normalization of NDAs prompted a St. Louis County commissioner to propose a ban on them last year.

Business groups, however, argue that NDA bans would stymie development.

“Without some level of confidentiality during those early conversations, companies may be unwilling to explore potential projects in Minnesota while evaluating investments across multiple states or competing communities within the same region,” wrote a group of economic organizations in a letter submitted to the Legislature.

And discussion on proposed moratorium on data centers…

A moratorium bill introduced by Sen. Jennifer McEwen, DFL-Duluth, would halt local permits for data centers until the state’s Public Utilities Commission submits a report  to the Legislature on energy usage, water usage and other impacts. The bill would delay development until at least a year after the report’s submission, theoretically pushing back local approvals into 2029.

FCC Updates Covered List to Include Foreign-Made Consumer Routers, Prohibiting Approval of New Models

This is a little wonkier than I usually go, but a long time ago I worked for a broadband provider and dealt with a lot of routers. The FCC reports...

Today, the Federal Communications Commission updated its Covered List to include all consumer-grade routers produced in foreign countries.  Routers are the boxes in every home that connect computers, phones, and smart devices to the internet.  This followed a determination by a White House-convened Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise that such routers “pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.”

The Executive Branch determination noted that foreign-produced routers (1) introduce “a supply chain vulnerability that could disrupt the U.S. economy, critical infrastructure, and national defense” and (2) pose “a severe cybersecurity risk that could be leveraged to immediately and severely disrupt U.S. critical infrastructure and directly harm U.S. persons.”

President Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy stated: “the United States must never be dependent on any outside power for core components—from raw materials to parts to finished products—necessary to the nation’s defense or economy.  We must re-secure our own independent and reliable access to the goods we need to defend ourselves and preserve our way of life.”

Malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to attack American households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate intellectual property theft.  Foreign-made routers were also involved in the Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon cyberattacks targeting vital U.S. infrastructure.

The determination included an exemption for routers that the Department of War (DoW) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have granted “Conditional Approval” after finding that such device or devices do not pose such unacceptable risks.  Producers of consumer-grade routers are encouraged to submit an application for Conditional Approval using the guidance attached to the determination.  Applications should be submitted to conditional-approvals@fcc.gov.

As outlined below, today’s action does not impact a consumer’s continued use of routers they previously acquired.  Nor does it prevent retailers from continuing to sell, import, or market router models approved previously through the FCC’s equipment authorization process.  By operation of the FCC’s Covered List rules, the restrictions imposed today apply to new device models.

Chairman Carr issued the following statement:

“I welcome this Executive Branch national security determination, and I am pleased that the FCC has now added foreign-produced routers, which were found to pose an unacceptable national security risk, to the FCC’s Covered List.  Following President Trump’s leadership, the FCC will continue do our part in making sure that U.S. cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and supply chains are safe and secure.”

Additional Background:

 

  • The FCC’s Covered List is a list of communications equipment and services that are deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the U.S. or the safety and security of U.S. persons.
  • Under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, the Commission can update the Covered List only at the direction of national security authorities. In other words, the Commission cannot update this list on its own and is required to implement determinations that are made by our national security agency experts.
  • Equipment on the Covered List (“covered” equipment) is prohibited from getting FCC equipment authorization. Most electronic devices (including consumer-grade routers) require FCC equipment authorization prior to importation, marketing, or sale in the U.S. Covered equipment is banned from receiving new equipment authorizations, preventing new devices from entering the U.S. market.
  • The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency encourages organizations to use the Covered List for risk management analysis in their regulatory compliance efforts.
  • Following a similar National Security Determination in December, and a follow-up Determination in January, the FCC recently added the following to the Covered List: “Uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country†† —except,  (a) UASand UAS critical components included on the Defense Contract Management Agency’s (DCMA’s) Blue UAS Cleared List, until January 1, 2027,#  (b) UAS critical components that qualify as “domestic end products” under the Buy American Standard, 48 CFR 25.101(a), until January 1, 2027; and (c) devices which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS—and all communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 118-159)”.

What does this mean?

  • New devices on the Covered List, such as foreign-made consumer-grade routers, are prohibited from receiving FCC authorization and are therefore prohibited from being imported for use or sale in the U.S. This update to the Covered List does not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized.
  • This action does not affect any previously-purchased consumer-grade routers. Consumers can continue to use any router they have already lawfully purchased or acquired.
  • Producers of consumer-grade routers that receive Conditional Approval from DoW or DHS can continue to receive FCC equipment authorizations. Interested applicants are encouraged to submit applications to conditional-approvals@fcc.gov

For more information, please see our FAQ page.

 

New MN Bill: extending the Legislative Commission on Cybersecurity HF3860

MN House reports…

Klevorn and Nash from the Committee on State Government Finance and Policy to which was referred:
H. F. No. 3860, A bill for an act relating to state government; extending the Legislative Commission on Cybersecurity; amending Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 3.888, subdivision 7.
Reported the same back with the recommendation that the bill be placed on the General Register.

New MN Bill: Open Meeting Law; meeting broadcasting through social media authorized HF3295

Bill to be discussed today (March 23) in the House Elections Finance and Government Operations…

HF3295 (Gordon) – Open Meeting Law; meeting broadcasting through social media authorized.

New MN Bill introduced: Require payment of certain local government utility costs related to trunk highway construction SF4051

I am going to try to at least track the bills that get introduced that are at all related to broadband and/or broadband use. I may not follow all closely. Click the bill number for more info and updates:

Description

Require payment of certain local government utility costs related to trunk highway construction out of the trunk highway fund
March 2:
Referred to Transportation

Does not currently include fiber but sounds like a Dig Once opportunity.

New MN Bill introduced: Municipalities prohibition from entering into nondisclosure agreements SF4379

I am going to try to at least track the bills that get introduced that are at all related to broadband and/or broadband use. I may not follow all closely. Click the bill number for more info and updates: This meeting is happening today (Mar 19).

From the MN House:

Committee on State and Local Government
Chair: Sen. Tou Xiong
11 a.m.
Hybrid hearing: Room 1100 Minnesota Senate Bldg. and Remote
*Agenda items may be added or removed. Please submit documents to Committee Administrator, mikayla.mtanous@mnsenate.gov by Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 2:00pm. Late submissions may not be posted in advance of the hearing or included in prepared materials for committee members. TESTIMONY: Testimony is limited. The number of testifiers and length of time permitted is at the discretion of the chair and is subject to change. Please plan accordingly. If you would like to testify, please email the Committee Administrator, mikayla.mtanous@mnsenate.gov by Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 2:30pm. Requests for Zoom testimony must be made at least 24 hours in advance. Include the bill number, your name, title and/or organization where applicable, and whether your testimony will be in support of or opposition to the bill. WRITTEN TESTIMONY AND HANDOUTS: Written testimony is encouraged. To submit written testimony or hand-outs, email Committee Administrator, mikayla.mtanous@mnsenate.gov by Wednesday, March 18 at 2:30pm. Please email the submission in following pdf format: yearmonthday_bill number_organization_testimony-or-handout Example: 20250329_SF2373_MinnesotaOrganizationName_Testimony
Agenda:
Call to Order

S.F. 4379-Maye Quade/Maye Quade: Municipalities prohibition from entering into nondisclosure agreements.

New MN Bill introduced: require age monitoring and verification for social media platforms HF4138

I am going to try to at least track the bills that get introduced that are at all related to broadband and/or broadband use. I may not follow all closely. Click the bill number for more info and updates:

From the MN House:

Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover) believes social media platforms “are designed to be addictive.”

And minors, she notes, are especially vulnerable to the dangers posed by social media, and as such, need extra protection.

HF4138 would require age monitoring and verification for social media platforms, parental approval, and specific treatment of accounts for children under age 15 related to addictive features, paid advertising, and the creation and termination of accounts.

“This bill does not ban users from having social media, instead it requires a parent or guardian to approve of social media contractual agreements,” Scott said of the bill she sponsors.

Via voice vote, the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the bill, as amended, Tuesday and sent it to the House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee.

Emily Thabes running for a seat in Minnesota House 2B – mentions broadband as an interest

The Bemidji Pioneer reports

Emily Thabes, Beltrami County Historical Society executive director, has announced her intent to run for the Minnesota House 2B seat in the upcoming midterm election, challenging incumbent Matt Bliss.

Broadband makes her top list of concerns…

Thabes listed child care, environmental hazards, poverty, broadband coverage and unemployment rates in greater Minnesota as some of the key topics of concern for the upcoming election. Thabes believes she will address these issues, pointing to her record as Beltrami County Historical Society executive director.

New MN Bill introduced: relating to modifying tax exemption for data centers HF4173

I am going to try to at least track the bills that get introduced that are at all related to broadband and/or broadband use. I may not follow all closely. Click the bill number for more info and updates:

From the MN House:

Smith and Lee, K., introduced:

HF. No. 4173, A bill for an act relating to taxation; sales and use; maintaining certain defined terms for other purposes; modifying the exemption for data centers; amending Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 216B.02, by adding a subdivision; Minnesota Statutes 2025 Supplement, sections 216B.02, subdivision 12; 297A.68, subdivision 42.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Taxes.

New MN Bill introduced: relating to preapplication evaluations of water appropriations for certain data centers HF4153

I am going to try to at least track the bills that get introduced that are at all related to broadband and/or broadband use. I may not follow all closely. Click the bill number for more info and updates:

From the MN House:

Mekeland, Swedzinski and Davis introduced:

HF. No. 4153, A bill for an act relating to data centers; modifying the criteria for preapplication evaluations of water appropriations for certain data centers; exempting certain data centers’ electricity sales in calculating a utility’s solar energy standard; exempting certain data centers from paying a fee; exempting certain data centers from paying sales tax on electricity purchases; amending Minnesota Statutes 2025 Supplement, sections 103G.265, subdivision 5; 216B.02, subdivision 12; 216B.1623; 216B.1691, subdivision 2f; 216B.72; 297A.68, subdivision 42.
The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Energy Finance and Policy.

Video: What Rural Communities Need to Know about Data Centers

From The Rural Assembly…

“What Rural Communities Need to Know About Data Centers” is now available for replay on Rural Assembly’s Youtube channel.

Tune in to the replay to learn more about⁠ many facets of the data center issue, including:

• what data centers are and why companies are interested in building them in rural communities; ⁠

• the political landscape;⁠

• what’s disputed; ⁠

• and what communities can do. ⁠ ⁠

Thank you to Annie Contractor, who led the session, and to our partners at Radically Rural, and to the more than 250 of you who showed up to the webinar last week to learn together, ask questions, and share your own experiences. ⁠