Open Letter

A Consumer-Focused National Data Privacy Framework

April 7, 2025

Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman

Rep. John Joyce, Vice Chairman

House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Rayburn House Office Building, 2125,

Washington, DC 20515

Response to the Request for Information for a Data Privacy and Security Framework

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, non-partisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life. We champion smart policies that are fit for growth, promote lifestyle choice, and defend technological innovation.

Herein, we will offer our comments on a future data privacy and security, albeit from a consumer-focused perspective.

The APRA

The previous attempt at comprehensive privacy legislation, the American Privacy Rights Act, was flawed for several reasons.

While this privacy bill addressed important principles, such as requiring transparency of data collected, the ability for consumers to have portable access to their information, and mechanisms for punishing bad actors, it went too far in granting government agencies power over private contracts and business models while exempting any agency from those same privacy rules.

The particular provision creating a new private right of action, unheard of in any other global privacy bill, inevitably would have created a quagmire that would litter our justice system with bogus and outrageous claims, all the while empowering politically connected trial attorneys who stand the most to gain. This would only further increase the $500 billion “lawfare liability” tax on our economy. This ultimately would have degraded the quality and raised the prices of goods and services that consumers depend on and would do nothing to safeguard user privacy.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:

Champion Innovation
Defend Portability
Allow Interoperability
Embrace Technological Neutrality
Avoid patchwork legislation
Promote and allow strong encryption

WHAT TO AVOID

In California, the Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 requires that companies calculate the value of individual data, provide opt-outs, require companies to inform consumers if their data is being sold, allow consumers to request data be deleted (right to be forgotten), and allow consumers access to the data collected by said firms in readable formats.

Vermont’s privacy law requires companies to inform consumers of data breaches directly, and also prohibits some forms of targeted advertising specifically when it comes to students.

Both of these laws contain elements of the EU’s GDPR, which has now been in effect for close to 9 years. As has been noted by several analysts, the enormous compliance costs and efforts have meant a significant reduction in both investment and market activity from small and medium-sized firms that relate to data. What’s more, European users have since been cut-off or blocked from using many services outside EU jurisdiction as firms are avoiding running afoul of the strict regulation. That has resulted in fewer products and services available to European citizens.

These previous attempts at privacy laws are flawed for the following reasons:

First, many parts of these laws stymie and prevent innovation. By making it more difficult and costly for firms to handle consumer data, companies are less incentivized to invest resources in innovative consumer services and offerings, resulting in less consumer choice and a higher barrier of entry for new competitors.

Second, at least in the cases of Vermont and California, these laws create a patchwork of regulation that makes compliance difficult or nearly impossible for firms operating in both the national and global marketplace, thereby driving up

costs and depriving consumers of these firms’ services irrespective of which state they reside in. A national law or widely adopted (and ideally global) industry self-regulation, which protects consumer privacy and also champions innovation, would be preferred.

Third, calculating data value for each and every firm’s customer and detailing every aspect of how that data is used is nearly impossible, vastly increasing costs for services that will inevitably be passed on to consumers.

Fourth, these laws do not take into consideration existing business practices that already provide adequate consumer and data protection, and have thus been used as industry standards. They also thwart innovation practices such as targeted advertising, geo-targeting, and personalization, which consumers prefer.

Last, each of these privacy laws further emboldens litigiousness, sparking new lawsuits and trials that would serve to vastly increase the cost of normal consumer products and services.

CHAMPION INNOVATION

Considering that thousands of firms have both safeguarded and used consumer data responsibly, lawmakers should seek to create clear and uniform rules that respect current standards, allow innovation, and provide clarity to both firms and consumers. Privacy rules that place an undue burden on companies following the law, rather than target the most blatant examples of data breaches and impropriety, will end up raising the cost of doing business and thus raise prices for consumers.

There should be recognition that consumers willingly give data to firms in order to receive a final service or goods that will be useful to them. As long as proper procedures are followed, and no data is leaked or changes hands without authorization, there should be no additional regulatory requirements that would serve to complicate a consumer’s voluntary relationship with a firm.

DEFEND PORTABILITY

Consumer-friendly data portability should be a reasonable standard applied to most firms that complete data transactions. Most of today’s firms allow personal data to be exported for review, but should also remain confidential and secure to avoid potential exploitation. If portability standards are kept too lax, this would be an

invitation to hackers and pirates looking to profit from identity or intellectual property theft.

Given the fast pace this environment changes, industry standards might be a more agile way of enforcing portability as compared to regulation.

ALLOW INTEROPERABILITY

Where necessary, firms should be incentivized to maintain open data standards that can be used between platforms where necessary. However, considering the fast-moving nature of data structures and standards, lawmakers should avoid favoring a particular method of data collection or export, whether that be JSON, HTML, or otherwise.

Rather, a broad principle of “technological neutrality” would allow the best standards to naturally evolve rather than be arbitrarily determined by regulatory bodies. Enforcement of interoperability standards would therefore be agreed to by firms handling data, and not necessarily determined by law. Consumers should ultimately decide if they want a service or product that either allows interoperability or not. The wide acceptance of apps and standards such as Apple CarPlay shows that most companies favor such standards that allow consumers to benefit by “plugging in”.

EMBRACE TECHNOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY

Because standards and technologies change so quickly, lawmakers should avoid legislation that favors a particular method or technology in data privacy rules. Applying a uniform rule on the format or process of technology would serve to limit the amount of innovation and natural evolution that currently defines our existing tech sector.

In all cases, legislation should embrace and encourage competition and consumer preference to determine the best technology. Technology changes too quickly and too much regulation might limit new technologies and standards from emerging as fast as they could within a more flexible framework.

AVOID PATCHWORK LEGISLATION

Due to the ever-growing consumer base across both state lines and international borders, state-by-state regulations that would impose different rules on different

residents should be avoided. This patchwork of legislation would increase the cost of delivering services in an efficient manner, and would likely stunt the availability of various products or services to consumers in various jurisdictions. As such, a broad and agile uniform standard should be agreed to at the federal level, rather than individual states or municipalities.

PROTECT AND ALLOW STRONG ENCRYPTION

The use of encryption by both individuals and firms is essential to our digital rights online. Many legislative proposals since the 1990s have attempted to outlaw cryptographic methods of securing and encrypting data. Most of these proposals have been justified on national security and law enforcement grounds. That said, existing laws on judicial warrants and Fourth Amendment protections apply to firms, and there is no reason to believe that a ban on encryption would make this easier or more productive.

Lawmakers should recognize citizens’ rights to encrypt and protect information and should extend this to the proprietary encryption methods that firms and companies use that serve their customers. Protecting rights to encryption is a safe and effective method to ensure consumer and data privacy can be upheld, whether that be medical data, personally-identifiable information, or financial data.

CONCLUSION

As we have outlined, there are examples of existing laws on data and consumer privacy that go far beyond the scope of consumer protection. Often, these laws serve to thwart innovation and slow down the progress that firms and companies can deliver to their customers.

What’s more, a regulatory approach that is far too restrictive or cumbersome will serve large incumbent players that can afford the additional costs while locking out start-ups and new competitors.

While we cheer the focus on data and privacy framework that would benefit consumers, we hope these recommendations are taken into account.

READ OUR RESPONSE FOR INFORMATION HERE

Comment on the Request for Information on the Development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan

Comment on the Request for Information on the Development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan

Herein, we will offer our comments on NSF, NITRD, and NSF’s development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan, albeit from a consumer-focused perspective of users and promoters of AI technology.

We offer several standing principles that should be central to any plan carried out by the Executive Branch and its agencies, as well as future areas of collaboration to ensure American citizens and consumers will have full access to the fruits of innovation in this space.

Permissionless Innovation

The United States must commit to empowering its markets and innovators by advancing permissionless innovation. In the past half-century, the most impactful inventions and technologies developed on American shores have emerged from the bottom-up, as self-maximizing entrepreneurs and industrialists have competed to feed consumer demand, employ talent, and deliver goods and services needed across the world.

This status quo has provided dividends for American security and strength, allowing the country to become much nimbler and more adaptive while avoiding the pitfalls of centralized command and control as practiced in China.

In allowing the unprecedented growth of the Internet through light-touch regulation for decades, the U.S. set global standards for tech and innovation. As a result, rules and regulations have emerged over time rather than been imposed by above, giving innovators the ample space and runway to develop both the hardware

and software that consumers have come to rely on. We must avoid top-down regulatory approaches on AI and other technologies as they have been tried in blue states, which would only serve to stunt our growth.

By shunning the precautionary principle, which hampers far too much innovation and growth elsewhere, the U.S. has embraced a system that rewards risk and punishes failures through market mechanisms rather than bureaucratic mandates. This unique system, matched with deep capital markets, stable rule of law, and protection of intellectual property, has made the U.S. the ideal launching pad for creative pursuits that have created vast amounts of wealth and opportunities.

Recommendation: In adopting an approach to permissionless innovation and avoiding the pitfalls of the precautionary principle, any future AI plan must guard against the instinct to preempt new AI technology or models by requiring burdensome governmental approval or licensing before launch. Only under rare exceptions related to military applications or deemed extremely high-risk should this be avoided.

Energy Supremacy

As a nation blessed with vast natural resources, the United States must continue to allow the development of energy projects of all stripes to continue to feed electricity grids, but also to power the next generation of data centers, transportation, and industry. This will be pivotal to advantage for next-generation AI technology.

Affordable and abundant energy will be a dominant force in freeing up the resources, time, and wealth for the economic and technological growth to remain competitive, as well as providing for the higher standard of living that will be demanded by the American population. For data centers and computing hubs, cheap energy will be requisite for maintaining an edge.

While still maintaining environmental standards, removing red tape for pipelines, natural gas extraction, offshore wind, and nuclear energy will have to be viewed as an all-encompassing strategy to maintain the country’s energy supremacy and dominance. Outdated infrastructure will have to be replaced, and regulatory systems will have to be streamlined.

Recommendation: Prioritization of red tape reduction for energy projects and an expansion of a diverse energy mix will allow entrepreneurs to create the infrastructure needed to power the AI revolution. Removal of barriers and fast-tracking of projects should be a necessity, as would approval for new energy technologies.

Hardware and chips The federal government should continue a careful approach to chip exports to undemocratic regimes. At the same time, the federal government should consider liberalizing the rules to ally nations, including European Union member states,, understanding that common market structures and economic incentives better align entrepreneurs and consumers in liberal democracies than outside this sphere.

Recommendation: Continue to monitor export of AI-related hardware to authoritarian regimes, while prioritizing trade with ally nations with similar liberal democratic principles.

Open source development vs model development

As consumers continue to benefit from open-source Large Language Models as well as proprietary models and products, the federal government should allow consumer competition to create the standards for this new era of technology, rather than codifying any requirements, structures, or computation limits into law. Allowing the best entrepreneurs to compete will deliver the most value for consumers who stand to gain from this technology.

Recommendation: Continue light-touch approach toward open-source developers while allowing closed-source developers and deployers of AI technology similar regulatory clarity to launch products for both commercial and personal use. Allow competition to create standards, rather than federal statutes.

Transatlantic cooperation

The US should collaborate with ally countries, especially European Union member states, for a “Free Nation” corridor for simple technology, capital, and product exchange that removes barriers and enshrines innovation in the AI sector. With an open dialogue and standard to be shared among free nations, this will ensure continued benefit to consumers and innovators in these nations, influencing and providing a model for nations that have yet to codify any AI policies into law.

Recommendation: The creation of a “Free Nation” corridor with EU member states to align with the interests of other liberal democracies and better facilitate trade to benefit consumers in the United States in beyond.

READ OUR SUBMISSION HERE

Consumers Aren’t Protected By Virginia’s social media ‘KYC’ Law

To the Delegates of the Virginia General Assembly,

As a consumer advocacy group representing consumers and Internet users who favor tech innovation, lifestyle freedom, and freedom of choice, we write to you with reservations about the bill you are soon to consider.

HB1624 requires that social media networks identify their users to classify those under 18 years of age and require parental consent if said platforms provide what the legislation broadly declares are “addictive feeds”. The bill also restricts social media firms from offering alternative products to minors.

The goal of protecting children online and steering them toward healthy uses of technology and social media is an important and noble goal that we also champion.

However, due to the language in this bill and the effects it would have on practically all users of social media, the measure would cause more harm than good. HB1624 would have a worrying impact on the ability of anyone – minor or adult – to freely use certain social platforms and participate online.

Our concerns on this bill are summarized in four points:

1. PRIVACY

For social media providers to determine who is a minor, they will also be forced to determine who is an adult. The bill stipulates that covered platforms must use “commercially reasonable methods to determine that the user is not a minor”. This introduces more technical complexity to social media access, but also legally requires a Know Your Customer regime that is antithetical to a free and open Internet.

Suppose users are required to provide verifiably personal details to sign up for certain websites. In that case, this will remove a user’s ability to access social media websites without providing sensitive information including their name, date of birth, identity documents, facial recognition, address, and much more.

The Internet has evolved to be the global marketplace for ideas and content, bringing people together and allowing for the freedom to explore, connect, and learn. Forcing

users to provide private data scraps anonymity and privacy on the Internet, which may be required, necessary, or desired by the consumer. This is what’s most consistent with our own First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association stands as a good example of young people’s right to receive information, whether it be from video games, chat rooms, or social media apps.

Online users should be able to use services or apps while providing or not providing whatever personal information they so choose, ensuring they can remain private and secure.

2. SECURITY

Because any platform using algorithmic feeds to deliver content would be required to collect personal and age-identifying information, it’s not difficult to see how attractive this data would be to potential hackers and bad actors. The more social media platforms a consumer uses, the worse this vulnerability would be for them.

The more that online services and state and federal regulations require users to submit online to access certain websites, the more risk there is of that information falling victim to coordinated hacks and unlawful disclosures. Any cursory search online can find hundreds of terabytes of hacked and leaked data that has been exposed, often due to lax security procedures or improper storage of data.

Though the legislation aims to outsource the process of age identification to a “commercially reasonable” method, there is no failsafe method for determining identity, storing that information, and ensuring it will not become accessible to the wider Internet. Requiring such a process by law does not render these systems hack-proof. Rather, it opens the floodgates and creates even more incentives for criminal activity online.

3. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND EDUCATION

Rather than government bureaucrats, it should be up to parents and guardians to guide their teenagers and educate them on how to use certain social media sites and applications. We applaud the notion of parental consent for minors accessing certain sites, but this should be a decision within households and independent of Virginia state statutes.

Forcing age identification for social media sites will impact every age group, therefore state resources could be better used to educate minors on the advantages and disadvantages of different social media activities and behaviors.

Parents should not have their roles or responsibilities curbed because of legislation that aims to do good for minors. We must ensure that Virginians have the freedom to choose how they educate and raise their children. Those parents and guardians are best suited to structure the technological needs and wants of their children. This bill undermines that.

4. A SETBACK FOR INNOVATION

Last, the process laid out in HB1624 restrains social media websites from creating any alternative experience on a social media app if a user is determined to be a minor.

What this means in practice is that any algorithm used in social media content delivery would be de facto restricted, and any social media platform would be prohibited from offering paid services, ad-free versions, or other alternatives to better suit select audiences. If this is carried through in Virginia, it would necessarily require social media networks to create different versions of apps or sites for Virginia residents – minor or adult – which creates an undue burden that many firms will actively avoid rather than attempt to comply with.

Rather than imposing age-gating on social media networks that will degrade and restrict the experience for users of all ages, we call on Virginia’s elected officials to consider alternative means to educate young people about social media and safety in the online world.

As consumer advocates, we at the Consumer Choice Center believe the answer to concerns about youth access to social media is not overly broad regulation that impacts users of all ages, but rather, developing guidance and educational resources that uphold the primary duty of care for parents and guardians.

Protecting kids online is a noble goal worthy of praise.

However, in its current form, HB1624 and its counterpart in SB854, are untenable and would ultimately make Virginia residents worse off.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen Kent (Manassas, VA)

Media Director

Consumer Choice Center submits FCC comments to protect radio frequency for open-source projects and amateur radio

This week, the Consumer Choice Center submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission on its proposal to reconfigure parts of the 900 MHz band, opposing the effort that would end up granting exclusive use for one specific company.

The lower end of the 900 MHz band is popular with open-source radio projects, amateur radio operations, and next-level drone and spectrum technologies, and has remained free and open to use. We believe that reconfiguring use of the band would harm these projects, as well as future innovation that depends on this end of the band.

Personally, as an amateur radio operator (KM4DDV) and enthusiast for LoRa radio devices, I believe consumers would benefit from an open and free band in this specific part of the spectrum, and innovators would be able to continue to create without concern for specific licensing. As an organization, we also believe this would help to protect innovation and choice for users and consumers who rely on this frequency for free play, experimentation, and creative products for the future.

Here is our letter to the FCC on this issue (also available on the FCC website):

As a consumer advocacy group that champions smart policies that are fit for growth, promotes lifestyle choice, and embraces tech innovation, the Consumer Choice Center files its comments today in opposition to the proposed rulemaking to reorganize and reconfigure the 902-928 MHz band in order to assign licensing conditions to NextNav for exclusive use.

While we do believe that our national spectrum policies should promote innovation, as well as deliver fair rules and licensing for entrepreneurs to offer great services to consumers, we take issue with the exclusive capacity this rulemaking would create that would hinder active participants and citizens who currently use this band, disrupting our open access to technology we enjoy.

The existing open spectrum on 900 MHz has thus far enabled hobbyists and amateur radio operators such as myself (callsign KM4DDV), as well as decentralized LoRa (Long Range) technology devices used in off-grid communication, and other commercial users, to experiment with open-source technologies and applications.

The band as it exists today has also enabled the growth of IOT broadcast signals, garage openers, security monitoring, drone flight paths, as well as experimental commercial applications as much as LoRa devices or amateur radio broadcasts.

A growing community of hobbyists and enthusiasts have benefited from an open band of spectrum in order to communicate with each other, test various devices, and ensure a free and open “net” for our own amateur radio communications.

As such, we would ask the FCC to reconsider its rulemaking to create a more balanced approach that would not discriminate against open-source projects, nor endanger the vital emergency services offered by amateur radio operators. Granting exclusive use would cause severe interference and create an inequitable spectrum policy that would advantage one particular company over potentially thousands of amateur users, as well as up-and-coming startups and companies.

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski (KM4DDV)

Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

Read our FCC submission here

Free Market Organizations Call on Agriculture Leadership to Promote Freedom and Consumer Choice, Not Government Restrictions

Dear House and Senate Agriculture Committee Leadership:

The undersigned organizations, representing consumers and taxpayers, as well as limited government and free market interests, write to express our opposition to imposing product restrictions on existing eligible grocery items covered under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We believe that having the federal government pick and choose what consumers can buy would be a significant overreach and is highly likely to result in higher taxes for consumers. Therefore, we strongly oppose the inclusion of this provision, or similar language, into the 2023 Farm Bill.

Our overarching concern is the proposed “Healthy SNAP” Act, which a number of lawmakers are attempting to jam into this iteration of the Farm Bill. This misguided proposal would remove a wide variety of everyday grocery items from SNAP eligibility, thereby infringing on consumer choice and creating a bad precedent that would most affect families in the unenviable position of receiving government help to pay for their groceries.

We object to the premise that government officials know better than individuals. Consumers, whether they are SNAP beneficiaries or not, should be allowed to make their own educated decisions in determining for themselves what foods and beverages to serve their families. They should not be subjected to top-down directives from policymakers and bureaucrats in Washington.

Furthermore, provisions in the Healthy SNAP Act would empower federal government bureaucrats to continuously impose prohibitions on grocery items they disfavor for an ever-widening number of reasons. As in the past, such a dynamic would surely be followed by calls to subject consumers to excise or “sin” taxes on those products. Today, the target may be treats not necessary to daily sustenance, or occasional snacks, but

future regulation could be used against any food producer as well as politically disfavored products like red meat, whole milk or farmed fish, for example.

The new regulatory framework in the Healthy SNAP Act would significantly increase the SNAP’s administrative costs. It would take significant resources to manage eligible versus ineligible products, track them, and communicate that information to states and retailers. This will add to the taxpayer burden at both the state and federal level, as SNAP’s administrative expenses are split equally between federal and state governments.

Our coalition deeply understands the need to address the rising cost of the Farm Bill. Many of the undersigned groups have proffered a number of solutions to address the need for comprehensive reform in this area. Yet we are skeptical of arguments that restricting certain products from SNAP eligibility would yield the savings promised by the authors of the Healthy SNAP Act. Restricting SNAP purchases won’t make Americans healthier, nor will it save money, but it will add more bureaucracy to the program and set a precedent for government intrusion into purchasing decisions made by everyday Americans.

Yael Ossowski
Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

Download the Letter Here

Support for the Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21st Century Act and CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act

Dear Members of Congress:

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing in support of the Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21^st Century Act (H.R. 4763). We also support complementary legislation (H.R. 5403) that prohibits the establishment of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) both directly to individuals and through the intermediated banking system.

The bipartisan FIT for the 21^st Century Act codifies a regulatory framework that directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on how to distinguish between “restricted digital assets” under the SEC’s purview and “digital commodities” under the CFTC’s. The bill also establishes procedures for broker-dealers, trading systems, exchanges, clearing agencies, and custodians to register with one, or both, of these agencies. Further, this proposed framework explicitly acknowledges that decentralized protocols are fundamentally different and thus need separate regulatory treatment. This legislation is necessary to prevent unelected bureaucrats at the SEC and CFTC from unilaterally and arbitrarily reprimanding individuals and institutions that may be directly or indirectly operating within the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Cryptocurrencies have been unlawfully vilified by the SEC. The securities enforcement agency has attempted to create false narratives to justify a political agenda. Earlier this year, a federal judge determined that the SEC’s lawsuit against a cryptocurrency firm was “a gross abuse of the power entrusted to it by Congress.” In fact, the judge stated that:

If one affirmatively states something is true when there are no facts to support it, that cannot be characterized as an inference. That is a falsehood. The decision to communicate this assertion to the court as fact, when it lacked any factual basis, demonstrates subjective bad faith.

By enacting the FIT for the 21^st Century Act, elected officials in Congress are using their legislative authority to preempt future abuses of executive power. Checks and balances as a method for separating powers among the three branches of government is a fundamental tenet of the U.S. Constitution. The FIT for the 21^st Century Act is a check to preexisting and future executive abuse.

The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is also necessary legislation. CBDCs not only crowd out private cryptocurrencies, but they are also an existential threat to consumer privacy protections. Some academics have also posited that CBDCs could be weaponized to collect taxes and enable the IRS to harass small businesses and individuals. CBDCs have no place in American society.

The cryptocurrency ecosystem is thriving with innovative investment opportunities and technological advancements. The creation of spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) is the epitome of a free market economy—where supply meets demand. Additionally, embracing distributed ledger technology, which is the decentralized bedrock unto which many cryptocurrencies are embedded, could revolutionize not just finance but also supply chain management, healthcare, and real estate.

Lawmakers should embrace change by using their legislative powers to cogently establish rules of the road for the future of the American financial sector. This will ensure legislative authority stays with elected officials in Congress and is not ceded to the executive branch.

Members of Congress should vote in support of the FIT for the 21^st Century Act and the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.

Sincerely,

Consumer Choice Center

Download the Letter Here

Support for the ROUTERS Act

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries,

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write in support of the Removing Our Unsecure Technologies to Ensure Reliability and Security (ROUTERS) Act. Specifically, we encourage House leadership to take up the ROUTERS Act posthaste. We further request that the House Appropriations Committee consider including report language in the FY2025 appropriations package encouraging agencies to investigate their information technology (IT) infrastructure and “rip and replace” any hardware manufactured by a company controlled by a foreign adversary nation.

Passed unanimously out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in March, the ROUTERS Act would require a report from the Department of Commerce informing policymakers of potential risks posed by consumer internet routers, modems, and other technologies produced by companies based in or controlled by foreign adversary nations. To safeguard America’s national and economic security, members of Congress need reliable information on technological vulnerabilities in consumer products produced in nations such as China and Russia. The ROUTERS Act would help provide such information.

The Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries have attempted to compromise our national and economic security at all levels of the “tech stack.” Congress previously addressed threats to our telecommunications infrastructure by passing the bipartisan Secure Equipment Act, which removed and banned the use of products made by Chinese telecommunications firms Huawei and ZTE. Congress recently addressed threats at the “edge” of the tech stack with legislation that enables the president to force the divestment of foreign-controlled platforms such as TikTok. Congress has requested studies that have helped illustrate the threats posed by the federal government’s use of other types of hardware, such as drones manufactured by Chinese-based drone company DJI. But Congress has not yet comprehensively examined the national security and economic vulnerabilities posed by the “middle” sections of our tech stack as represented by routers and modems.

Concerns about potential vulnerabilities in routers and modems are well founded, and passing the ROUTERS Act will help Congress take appropriate measures to secure our digital infrastructure. In January 2024, CCP-supported hacker groups in Europe exploited vulnerabilities in routers made by the Chinese company TP-Link to conduct cyber espionage operations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has logged hundreds of reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities within TP-Link’s products in its National Vulnerabilities Database. Even with these known vulnerabilities, agencies such as the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the General Services Administration have reportedly purchased TP-Link hardware.

The ROUTERS Act would begin the process of identifying the level of threat that such technologies pose to American national and economic security. The bill marks another step in the bipartisan effort to secure our supply chains and tech stack from threats posed by products and vendors based in or beholden to countries of concern.

In addition to taking up the ROUTERS Act, we encourage Congress to include report language in the FY2025 appropriations package that recommends federal agencies conduct an inventory of their routers and remove any hardware manufactured in countries of concern that could have built-in cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Historically, when addressing national security threats to our tech stack, the federal government has led by example, voluntarily removing vulnerable hardware and software from government devices and networks. While, to our knowledge, no legislation has yet been proposed requiring federal agencies to do so, we believe that the appropriations report language this appropriations cycle could kickstart the removal of vulnerable routers and modems from federal IT systems. After the passage of the ROUTERS Act, this would be a great second step toward addressing threats at the highest level and proactively mitigating any potential harm.

Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this vital issue. We look forward to working with you to ensure that this piece of legislation becomes law and to continue the effort to secure our technological infrastructure.

Sincerely,

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

Download the Letter Here

Nebraska: Don’t Penalize Consumers and Online Users on Ad Taxes

Dear Nebraska Senators,

As a consumer advocacy group that champions the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life, we write you to express concern over recent amendments to the property tax relief proposal found in LB388, specifically sections 8-12 known as the “Advertising Services Tax Act”.

The levying of a 7.5% tax on a digital advertising platform – no matter its size – will ultimately have an impact on small businesses that use such platforms, as well as consumers and users who rely on legitimate advertising to be better informed about products and services they enjoy.

The broader goal of property tax relief is a very worthwhile endeavor, and one we support, but including a separate punitive tax in the same bill on those who use digital advertising services would likely do more harm than good. Startups, small businesses, and advocacy groups use digital advertising to reach consumers and citizens alike, and we believe that placing additional burdens would raise the cost and ultimately favor larger businesses that can afford it.

As a consumer advocacy organization that aims to reach and inform consumers on public policy matters, we often use digital advertising tools to spread our message, as we did in Nebraska around the issue of bans on direct-to-consumer auto sales, disproportionally high vehicle registration fees, and the persistence of corporate welfare that harms consumers and taxpayers.

With a levy on digital advertising, those costs will ultimately be passed on to groups like ours, and will stifle and limit information that consumers can receive about goods and services they prefer, as well as important public policy considerations.

We would urge reconsideration of the amendments in question, and hope you can return to the business of providing a stable and competitive legal environment for the benefit of all Nebraska consumers.

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

Read our Letter Here

Florida Youth Deserve Better Than Gatekeeping of Social Apps

January 22, 2024
By Yaël Ossowski
In Open Letter, Tech Regulation, Technology
0 comments

Jan 22, 2024

Dear State Representatives and Senators,

As a consumer advocacy group engaged on a wide range of digital issues including privacy and technological innovation, representing both our members and consumers, we implore you to consider another path when it comes to protecting Florida youth online, specifically HB1.

In its current form, the law would be the most draconian age-verification process for online platforms in the nation, barring all users under the age of 16 who want to use specific social media platforms regardless of parental consent or preferences for their child’s online presence.

This process would also require select social media companies to collect sensitive personal information that we do not believe should ever be in the possession of any private entities by government mandate. This is ripe for future abuse as well as data security threats that could carry real harm to young people beginning their lives online. It will be a pandora’s box of epic proportions.

What’s more, the law makes overly broad exceptions for apps that can demonstrate a “predominate” use case for private messaging services. There are better ways to approach this, such as specifying digital services that focus exclusively on messaging. The state of Florida would be creating an uneven playing field, choosing winners and losers in the social media space, and privileging certain apps arbitrarily based on what function consumers utilize most.

A solution that better respects parental rights, defends American innovation, and allows online consumers and their parents to choose digital apps freely would not only be more adequate, but would also allow the best private sector solutions to emerge organically.

Parents should not have their authority and decision-making power usurped by state law or institutions, no matter how noble the cause. Rather than gatekeeping an entire generation from enjoying social connections online, we implore you to provide another solution that works for parents, young online consumers, and the American tech innovators who provide value for each and every one of us in our daily lives.

In a free country with a vibrant competitive marketplace, we will lose our global competitive edge if an entire generation is kept from the keyboard and the online global village. The Consumer Choice Center trusts parents to make the right call for their kids under 16 when it comes to social media activity. We hope you will too.

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

Submission to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration on Kids Online Health and Safety

November 16, 2023
By Yaël Ossowski
In Open Letter, Tech Regulation, Technology
0 comments

Submission to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration on Kids Online Health and Safety

We hereby submit these comments to better inform and educate the Task Force on Kids Online Health & Safety on the pressing issues of keeping kids safe online while remaining steadfast to the open, innovative nature of digital technologies such as the Internet.

The Role of Technological Solutions

As a consumer advocacy group that champions tech innovation and consumer choice, we believe wholeheartedly that, where necessary, technological solutions should be a principal alternative to restrictive regulation that will impose direct and indirect costs and create barriers to online information and connection.

With many social situations or platforms, we know that there exists much concern about young people, teens especially, and their behavior online. There has been a constant barrage of academic research, political proposals, and messaging campaigns that center on restricting parts of online life to young people for their safety.

While there is a definitive trend as to the framing of social media use as negative for young people, the existing research is much more nuanced and likely more balanced when we consider the benefits.

A 2022 study in Current Psychology found that in classifying users into 3 categories: active, passive, and average use of social media, each documented benefits that outweigh potential harms, even more so for the larger category of “average” users.

For every media outrage story about questionable online content or behavior, there are dozens more unreported of improved social well-being, more social connection, and genuine happiness, especially among young people. This is especially true because, for the most part, teens and young people have gravitated from purely physical social lives to a hybrid social life online as well, unlocking new opportunities to explore, learn, and expand their knowledge and understanding.

This was also admitted by the American Psychological Association, which this year published its own recommendations for parents of teens to monitor online safety.

The solutions offered by the APA and several partner organizations are important, and likely do have merit and efficacy with young people online. Contrasting with many proposals existing in legislation, these recommendations are to be overseen and executed by parents and communities, and would negate the need for punitive measures issued by governments.

We believe this is an important factor for any remedy affecting online safety for teens and young adults. Voluntary measures, whether that be parental screening, communication, or oversight, when used in conjunction with technological tools, will have a more balanced and effective result than any government-imposed restriction.

Parental screening of application downloads, online profiles, and general education about behavior and content online has thus far proven to be the most measured approach to kid safety online, and it should continue to be.

The Wrong Path of State Intervention

Proposals that lead to agency or government intervention into these efforts, we believe, would do more harm than good.

As we have seen in several state proposals in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas, preemptively limiting youth access to online social media use not only elicits legal questions, but also severely restricts the ability for young people to explore the benefits of online platforms and networks.

These proposals have been akin to a labyrinth of weaponized policies that prevent teens from engaging with friends and family online, would burden future social media upstarts, and would lead to worse precedents that put free speech on the Internet at risk, as well as leading to significant hacker exploits.

Proposals such as the now enjoined SB396 in Arkansas make it more difficult for young people to begin to use the Internet and all the benefits it provides, but it also enshrined into law the idea that governments should pick which social media networks young people can or cannot use rather than parents.

We believe this is paternalistic, sets a terrible precedent for online speech and access, and amounts to nothing more than heavy-handed government control of who is allowed online and when.

It elicits the question of whether the final arbiter of whether young people access the Internet at all, and that parents should have diminished say in their kids’ digital lives. We believe that is fundamentally wrong.

Unfortunately, we see in these legislative attempts few good-willed efforts at remedying online safety concerns, and instead legislative retribution against certain social media companies based on political persuasion.

What’s more, many of these proposed solutions would likely create more substantive harm from digital exploitation of information and data than current voluntary or technological tools available to parents.

These proposals, including federal proposals from the US Senate such as the Kids Online Safety Act, require social media websites to collect sensitive photos, IDs, and documentation of minors, mandating enormous privacy risks that will be a cyberhacker’s dream.

We believe that as a society, we should trust that parents have the ultimate right to decide whether or not their children access certain websites or services, and that those decisions are not overruled by legislative proposals.

The answer is technology

As we have stated, and as the research demonstrates, there are immense benefits to social media that are practiced and explored each and every day for people of any age category.

Whether it be for creative purposes, democratic expression, social connection, commerce and business, or education, there are a myriad of benefits to social media that, when paired with responsible adult supervision and guidance, will continue to be a positive force for society as a whole.

Where necessary, when parents and communities can implement technological solutions that help improve the benefits of social media use – whether it be in voluntary parental filters, download authorization, or educational materials – this will be the best and most effective method for protecting young people online. Keeping the Internet as an open ecosystem for exploration, learning, and connection will bring many more benefits to the next generation than restrictive bans or limits imposed by law.

We hope your commission will take these points to heart, and will continue to advocate for responsible use of technology and the Internet for young people and their parents.

Link to the PDF

CCC Joins 31 Group Coalition Letter Against New CFPB Regulatory Assault

Washington, D.C.: In response to President Biden promoting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new credit card late fee price cap at the White House last week, the Consumer Choice Center signed a coalition letter to the president and the CFPB urging them to reconsider the rule. The letter is signed by 31 groups and advocacy organizations dedicated to promoting pro-growth, pro-consumer policies.

“History indicates that consumers are the ones who bear the brunt of regulations like this one because, to offset the resulting costs, financial institutions ultimately impose new fees and higher interest rates while reducing Main Street’s credit access,” the letter stated, “For instance, the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act capping interchange fees on debit cards led to the elimination of free checking accounts, raised minimum balance requirements, and increased maintenance fees. Your new late fee cap will similarly increase financial institutions’ operational costs, which American consumers will again inevitably bear.”

The letter also highlighted how the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy noted the CFPB refused to “properly consider the impact this rule will have on small entities” despite courts holding that agencies must do so before certifying a rulemaking.

CC’ed on the letter were Sens. Sherrod Brown and Tim Scott (Chair/Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs); Reps. Patrick McHenry and Maxine Waters (Chair/Ranking Member of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee), and Reps. Roger Williams/Nydia Velázquez (Chair/Ranking Member of the U.S. House Small Business Committee).

The letter’s signatories include Ed Martin, Phyllis Schlafly Eagles; Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; John Berlau, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Cameron Shelby, Heartland Impact; Brent M. Gardner, Americans for Prosperity; Karen Kerrigan, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council; Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste; Gerard Scimeca, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy; Brian Garst, Center for Freedom & Prosperity; Isaac Schick, American Consumer Institute; Stephen Kent, Consumer Choice Center; Patrick Brennen, Southwest Policy Institute; Hadley Heath Manning, Independent Women’s Voice; Terry Schilling, American Principles Project; George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom; Saul Anuzis, 60 Plus Association; David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Paul Gessig, Rio Grande Foundation; Jeff Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom; Ryan Ellis, Center for a Free Economy; Phil Kerpen, American Commitment; Seton Motley, Less Government; Dan Perrin, HSA Coalition; Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach; Wendy Darmon, Palmetto Promise Institute; Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation; Richard Manning, Americans for Limited Government; Carol Platt Liebau, Yankee Institute; Marcos Lopez, Nevada Policy Institute; Mike Stenhouse, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity; and Sal Nuzzo, James Madison Institute.

You can view the letter HERE.

Hold The Line on FDA Appropriations In Defense of Consumers

Dear House Appropriations Committee Members,

As an advocacy group engaged in work to protect and defend consumer choice, we urge you to keep in place Sections 768-769 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. These sections refer to limiting the funding of several rules issued by the Food & Drug Administration to ban entire flavored categories of various tobacco and nicotine products without any reference to safer alternatives that save lives.

Over the past year, the FDA held exhaustive hearings and consultations on these provisions, which we did participate in and opposed at the time. Despite protests from consumers and civil society groups, they were implemented regardless.

By keeping these funding restrictions in the bill, you can support consumers making their own product choices, while preserving safer nicotine alternatives and avoiding the negative repercussions that would follow from product prohibition.

It is vitally important that the House Appropriations Committee pursue an actionable plan for incorporating harm reduction and reduced-risk nicotine alternatives in policy and at the FDA, rather than shortsighted bans that threaten to boost illicit markets.

If the agency is serious about reducing smoking in our country, then the answer must center on harm reduction in all aspects, rather than ratcheting up bans and restrictions that will cause more harm.

Please keep these provisions in place and continue to stand tall in defense of consumer choice for your constituents.

Sincerely Yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

(PDF version available here)

A Consumer-Focused National Data Privacy Framework

Comment on the Request for Information on the Development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan

Consumer Choice Center submits FCC comments to protect radio frequency for open-source projects and amateur radio

Free Market Organizations Call on Agriculture Leadership to Promote Freedom and Consumer Choice, Not Government Restrictions

Support for the Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21st Century Act and CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act

Support for the ROUTERS Act

Nebraska: Don’t Penalize Consumers and Online Users on Ad Taxes

Florida Youth Deserve Better Than Gatekeeping of Social Apps

CCC Joins 31 Group Coalition Letter Against New CFPB Regulatory Assault

Hold The Line on FDA Appropriations In Defense of Consumers

Dear House Appropriations Committee Members,

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA