Consumers and Small Businesses Will Be Losers of Florida’s Privacy Bill

Lawmakers in Florida are currently considering legislation that would ban targeted advertising in the state. At first glance, this might seem like a step towards safeguarding consumer privacy and doing away with intrusive ads. However, the bill would actually have disastrous consequences for Florida businesses and for individual choice. It also has broader implications for the use of government authority in an increasingly technological world.

The bills in question – HB 1547 and its Senate companion, S 262 – would place severe restrictions on social media platforms and tech companies that collect user data. It also includes a broad “opt out” clause that would allow Floridian internet users to choose not to receive targeted advertisements. This would place small businesses in the state at a severe disadvantage with respect to their larger competitors, as well as with other small businesses in other states.

This legislation demonstrates the pitfalls of attempting sweeping technology policy reforms at the state level. Targeted ads are a key way for small businesses to get in front of new audiences and attract business. Under this bill, Florida’s small business community will be the only one in the nation without access to this important source of customer acquisition.

This sweeping plan would relegate Florida businesses to untargeted paid advertisements. This is a costly option and would drive up the cost of doing business, because of the inherent inefficiency in this approach. While Florida lawmakers tried to ensure the bill only targeted large businesses, these will be the only ones able to comply and stay operational. Small businesses end up with the raw end of the deal.

This effort in Florida also reflects a disturbing trend nationwide in approaching online privacy. Policymakers are making a habit of catering to the lowest common denominator. Every approach to privacy will naturally have tradeoffs. Instead of trying to eliminate every risk or tailoring a policy towards the most cautious, there are avenues that include acceptable risk. Further, there are surely plenty of consumers who prefer targeted ads and are fine with their data being collected.

Instead of educating Florida consumers about the privacy rights they do have, these bills focuses on making choices for them. The bills target data use by all companies, and because of the broad approach, would ultimately do very little to protect consumers from malicious data brokers and actually untrustworthy companies.

This is also evidenced by the fact that Chinese tech companies are exempted from the implications of the bill. Florida companies would be hamstrung by these regulations, while privileging Chinese competitors – who have a proven track record of data collection.

Lastly, the Florida bills are written very vaguely. They would ultimately provide the state government the authority to apply the law beyond what is being considered now. This excessive power could eventually be used to punish companies that are critical of the government or to further violate online consumer choice. The point is that the bills are so vague there are potential consequences that cannot even be imagined at this stage.

Online data collection and incessant advertisements are indeed not very popular. However, the alternative under the Florida legislation is not a perfectly secure world with fewer ads. Rather, the reality would be a world with the same amount of ads, but less relevant ones. It would also decimate Florida’s community of small businesses by putting them at a disadvantage with respect to most all competitors.